LIBRARY 

OK  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

RECEIVED    BY    EXCHANGE 

Class 


THE  NAVY  OF  THE 
AMERICAN    REVOLUTION 


ulltr  Umurrsttg  of 

FOUNDED   BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


The  Navy  of   the 
American  Revolution 

Its  Administration,  its  Policy  and 
its  Achievements 


A  DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  the 

Graduate  School  of  Arts  and  Literature 

In  Candidacy  for  the  Degree  of 

Doctor  of  Philosophy 

Department  of  History 


By 
CHARLES  OSCAR  PAULLIN 


CHICAGO 

1906 


- 


A    i  v 

COPYRIGHT,  1906 

BY 

THE  BURROWS  BROTHERS  COMPANY 


PREFACE 

Several  narrative  accounts  of  the  navy 
of  the  American  Revolution  have  been 
written.  These  usually  form  the  intro 
ductory  part  of  a  history  of  the  American 
Navy  since  1789.  The  earliest  of  these  ac 
counts  is  that  of  Thomas  Clark,  published 
in  1814,  and  probably  the  best  that  of  James 
Fenimore  Cooper,  first  printed  in  1839.  Lat 
er  narratives  are  rather  more  popular  than 
Cooper's.  Many  sources  of  information, 
which  were  not  accessible  to  the  earlier 
writers,  and  were  not  much  used  by  the 
later,  were  drawn  upon  in  the  writing  of 
this  book.  Moreover,  the  information  that 
is  here  presented  is  of  a  somewhat  different 
sort  from  that  of  previous  writers;  and  the 
method  of  treatment  is  new. 

This  book  is  written  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  naval  administrators;  hitherto, 
historians  have  written  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  naval  officers.  Their  narratives 
treat  almost  exclusively  of  the  doings  at 
sea,  the  movements  of  armed  vessels,  and 
the  details  of  sea  fights.  They  have  the 
advantage  of  dealing  primarily  with  pictur 
esque,  and  sometimes  dramatic,  events. 
Their  accounts,  however,  lack  unity,  since 


6  Preface 

they  consist  of  a  series  of  detached  incidents. 

In  the  first  place  an  attempt  has  been  here 
made  to  restore  the  naval  administrative 
machinery  of  the  Revolution.  The  center 
of  this  narrative  is  the  origin,  organization, 
and  work  of  naval  committees,  secretaries 
of  marine,  navy  boards,  and  naval  agents. 
Next,  inasmuch  as  the  men  who  served  as 
naval  executives  administered  the  laws  re 
lating  to  naval  affairs,  and  indeed  often  pre 
pared  these  laws  before  their  adoption  by 
the  legislative  authorities,  it  was  thought 
best  to  give  a  fairly  complete  resume  of  the 
naval  legislation  of  the  Revolution.  Those 
laws  with  which  the  naval  administrators 
were  chiefly  concerned  have  received  most 
attention.  The  legislation  with  reference 
to  prize  courts  and  privateering  has  been 
treated  more  briefly.  As  the  privateers  do 
not,  properly  speaking,  form  a  part  of  the 
Revolutionary  navy,  no  attempt  to  write 
their  history  has  been  made.  In  order  that 
the  subject  may  be  seen  in  its  true  relations, 
some  statistics  and  other  interesting  facts 
concerning  this  industry  have,  however, 
been  introduced.  An  account  of  the  State 
Navies  is  now  given  for  the  first  time. 

Since  naval  committees,  navy  boards,  and 
naval  agents  issued  written  orders  to  the 
naval  commanders  prescribing  the  time 
place,  and  manner  of  their  cruises,  it  has 
seemed  logical  and  proper  to  consider  the 
naval  policy  of  the  administrators,  and  the 


Preface  7 

movements  of  the  armed  vessels.  So  de 
tailed  an  account  of  naval  movements,  as 
would  be  given  by  those  writers  who  pro 
ceed  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  doings  of 
the  naval  officers,  would  obviously  not  be 
expected  in  this  book.  My  plan  has  been  to 
describe  the  various  classes  of  naval  move 
ments,  to  present  the  sum  total  of  their  re 
sults,  and  to  give  briefly  the  details  of  a  few 
typical  cruises  and  sea  fights.  The  cruises 
of  the  American  vessels  were  much  alike; 
they  were  minor  affairs,  and  many  of  them 
scarcely  merit  individual  treatment. 

It  is  evident  that  one  who  proposes  to 
write  the  history  of  the  navy  of  the  American 
Revolution  from  the  point  of  view  which  I 
have  described,  will  not  only  avoid  exces 
sive  detail  in  respect  to  individual  naval 
achievements,  but  will  be  particularly  deter 
mined  not  to  allow  their  brilliancy  or  their 
dramatic  quality  to  fix  the  amount  of  detail 
with  which  each  shall  be  narrated.  For 
instance,  several  historians  have  been  in 
clined  to  dwell  at  some  length  upon  the 
brilliant  and  picturesque  achievements  of 
John  Paul  Jones.  Sometimes  they  have  de 
voted  more  than  one-third  of  their  narratives 
of  the  Continental  navy  to.  this  hero,  un 
doubtedly  the  greatest  naval  officer  of  the 
Revolution.  As  a  result,  the  pictures 
which  they  have  presented  are  somewrhat 
distorted,  and  many  brave  sea  officers  have 
had  scant  justice  done  their  gallant  services. 


8  Preface 

An  attempt  is  made  in  this  book  to  present 
a  better  balanced  narrative,  and  to  make  a 
j  uster  estimate  of  the  work  of  the  Revolu 
tionary  navy.  The  scope  and  method  of 
treatment  adopted  by  the  author  has  com 
pelled  a  certain  economy  of  phrase,  precision 
of  statement,  and  sharpness  of  outline. 

I  am  very  grateful  to  the  many  persons 
who  have  assisted  me.  Space  does  not  per 
mit  me  to  thank  each  of  them  by  name.  I 
am  under  special  obligations  to  the  librari 
ans  and  officials  of  the  Library  of  Congress, 
the  Library  of  the  Department  of  the  Navy, 
the  Bureau  of  Rolls  and  Library  of  the  De 
partment  of  State,  the  State  Library  of  Mas 
sachusetts,  the  Office  of  the  Massachusetts 
State  Archives,  the  Boston  Public  Library, 
the  Boston  Athenaeum,  the  Library  of  Har 
vard  University,  the  State  Library  of  Rhode 
Island,  the  Rhode  Island  Historical  Society, 
the  State  Library  of  Connecticut,  the  Con 
necticut  Historical  Society,  the  Pennsyl 
vania  Historical  Society,  the  State  Library 
of  Virginia,  the  Virginia  Historical  Society, 
the  Office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  South 
Carolina,  the  Charleston  (South  Carolina) 
Public  Library,  and  the  Library  of  the  Uni 
versity  of  Chicago.  Far  more  than  to  any 
one  else,  I  am  indebted  to  Professor  John 
Franklin  Jameson,  Director  of  the  Depart 
ment  of  Historical  Research  in  the  Carnegie 
Institution  of  Washington.  I  have  had  the 
advantage  of  Professor  Jameson's  extensive 


Preface  9 

knowledge  of  bibliography.,  his  fruitful  sug 
gestions  as  to  treatment,  and  his  painstak 
ing  care  in  reading  and  criticising  my  manu 
script.  Parts  of  the  narrative,  somewhat 
popularized,  have  appeared  in  the  Proceed 
ings  of  the  United  States  Naval  Institute 
and  the  Sewanee  Review. 

C.   0.   P. 

Washington,  D.  C. 
March  1,   1906. 


CONTENTS 


THE    CONTINENTAL    NAVY 

CHAPTER  I. — The  Naval  Committee. 

The  need  in  1775  for  an  army  and  for  a 

navy 31 

Agitation  for  a  navy  outside  of  Con 
gress 32 

Agitation  for  a  navy  in  Congress 34 

The  first  naval  legislation 35 

Appointment  of  the  Naval  Committee  38 

First  work  of  the  Naval  Committee. ...  38 

Reconstitution  of  the  Naval  Committee  38 
John  Adams's  description  of  the  Naval 

Committee 39 

The  organization  and  decline  of  the  Na 
val  Committee 40 

Growth  in  Congress  of  naval  sentiment  41 
Naval  legislation  under  the  Naval  Com 
mittee  42 

The  procuring  of  a   fleet 51 

The  appointment  of  officers 52 

The  first  naval  expedition 55 

Resume  of  the  work  of  the  Naval  Com 
mittee  .  60 


12  Contents 


CHAPTER  II. — The  Fleets  of  Washington  and 
Arnold. 

Fitting  out  of  the  "  Hannah  " 61 

Fitting  out  of  Washington's   "Boston 

fleet7' 62 

Washington's  opinion  of  his  command 
ers  64 

Services     rendered    by     Washington's 

"Boston  fleet" 65 

Broughton  and  Selman's  raid  on  Prince 

Edward  island 66 

The  disposition  of  Washington's  prizes  67 

The  delay  in  bringing  them  to  trial ....  68 
History  of  the  fleet  after  the  evacuation 

of  Boston 69 

Washington's  "  New  York  fleet " 70 

Beginning  of  the  fleet  on  lakes  Cham- 
plain  and  George 71 

Its  increase  in  the  summer  of  1776 72 

The  work  of  Benedict  Arnold 73 

The  British  fleet  on  the  Lakes 76 

The  battle  of  Lake  Champlain,  October 

11-13,  1776 77 

Results  of  the  naval  campaign  on  the 

Lakes 77 

CHAPTER  III. — The  Organization  of  the  Ma 
rine  Committee. 

The  maritime  interests  of  New  England  79 

Naval  enterprise  in  Rhode  Island 80 

The  naval  situation  in  Congress,  1775-76  81 

The  Rhode  Island  instructions  .  ,  81 


Contents  13 


The  debate  in  Congress  thereon 82 

Postponement  of  action  on  instructions .  83 
Favorable  action  by  Congress,  Decem 
ber  11,   1775 85 

Decision  of  Congress  to  build  thirteen 

frigates 85 

Appointment  of  the  Marine  Committee  86 
The  Marine  Committee  absorbs  the  Na 
val  Committee 87 

The  organization  and  pay  of    the  Ma 
rine  Committee 87 

Its  chairmen 88 

Other  valuable  members 90 

Naval  agents  for  building  the  Continent 
al  frigates 90 

Prize  agents 93 

Continental  agents 95 

Aid  rendered  the  Marine  Committee. .  .  95 

Navy  Board  at  Philadelphia 96 

Navy  Board  at  Boston 97 

Designations  of  the  boards 99 

The  organization  of  the  boards 100 

The  personnel  of  the  boards 101 

Salaries 102 

Enumeration  of  the  principal  agents  of 

the  Marine  Committee 103 

Minor  agents 103 

CHAPTER  IV.— The  Work  of  the  Navy  Boards 
and  the  Marine  Committee. 

Lack  of  system  in  the  Naval  Depart 
ment  of  the  Revolution 10'4 

Examples 105 


14  Contents 


Work  and  duties  of  the  navy  boards.  .  107 
Men  and  materials  needed  in  building  a 

ship 110 

Provisions  needed  in  fitting  out  a  ship  112 
Division  of  labor  among  the  naval  com 
missioners 112 

The  heavy  work  of  the  Boston  Board. .  113 
Two-fold   duties   of   the   Marine   Com 
mittee 115 

Administrative    duties    of    the    Marine 

Committee 116 

Naval  uniform 117 

Communications   of    the   Marine   Com 
mittee 118 

Reports  of  the  Marine  Committee 120 

Naval  legislation  under  the  Marine  Com 
mittee 121 

Naval  increases 121 

Naval  appointments  and  promotions.  .  123 

Relative  rank 125 

Captures  and  the  sharing  of  prizes 126 

Privateers 127 

Naval  pay 128 

Naval  pensions 129 

Courts-martial  and  courts  of  enquiry.  .  131 

Important  naval  trials 133 

The  case  of  Commodore  Esek  Hopkins  134 
Provision  for  the  fleet  of  Count  D'Est- 

aing 139 

The  Marine  Committee  as    a  consular 

bureau..  139 


CHAPTER  V.— The  Conditions  of  the  Conti 
nental  Naval  Service. 

The  recent  revolution  in  navies  and  nav 
al  conditions 141 

Constancy  of  the   principles  of  naval 

strategy 143 

Maritime  conditions  in  America  in  1775, 

and  in  1900 144 

Difficulties  in  procuring  seamen  during 

the  Revolution 144 

The  privateers  of  the  Revolution 147 

State  navies 152 

The  naval  defence  of  America 153 

Naval  stations  of  the  Americans 154 

Naval  stations  of  the  British 155 

Comparison  of  the  British  and  Ameri 
can  navies 156 

Weakness  of  the  American  navies 159 

Diffusion  of  authority  in  naval  admin 
istration ". 160 

CHAPTER  VI. — Movements  of  the  Continen 
tal  Fleet  under  the  Marine  Committee. 

Work    of    the  fleet  of  a    non-military 

character 161 

Classification  of  military  operations  .  .  .  162 

Primary  naval  operations 163 

Enumeration  of  secondary  operations.  164 

Defence  of  American  commerce 164 

Cooperation  with  the  army 166 

The  striking  of   the    enemy's  lines   of 

communication..  167 


16  Contents 


Commerce-destroying 169 

The  threatening  and  attacking  of  the 

enemy's  coasts 173 

A  naval  plan  of  Robert  Morris 174 

The  Marine  Committee  and  its  plans.  .  176 

Success  and  failure  of  the  navy 177 

The  navy  of  the  Revolution  and  of  the 

Spanish- American  war 179 

CHAPTER  VII. — The  Board  of  Admiralty. 

Defects  of  the  Marine  Committee 181 

Criticism  of  the  administration  of  Cong 
ress 182 

A  new  system  of  Executives 184 

Criticism  of  the  Naval  Department  by 

Washington  and  Jay 184 

Establishment  of  a  Board  of  Admiralty, 

October,  1779 187 

Powers  and  duties  of  the  Board  of  Ad 
miralty 188 

Salaries 189 

Selection  of  commissioners  of  Admiralty  190 

Francis  Lewis  and  William  Ellery 193 

Congress  and  the  Board  of  Admiralty  .  194 

Work  of  the  Board  of  Admiralty 195 

Decrease  in  naval  machinery 195 

Reports   of  the  Board  of  Admiralty 196 

Naval  legislation   under  the  Board  of 

Admiralty 197 

The  granting  of  naval  commissions  by 

the  states 201 

The  American  navy  and  British  models  202 

Court  of  appeals  for  prize  cases 203 


Contents  17 


The  fleet  under  the  Board  of  Admiralty  203 
Embarrassments  of  the  Board  of  Admi 
ralty 204 

Success  and  failure  of  the  fleet 205 

Discontinuance  of  the  Board  of  Admi 
ralty 208 

Defects  of  the  Board  of  Admiralty.  ...    209 

CHAPTER  VIII. — The    Secretary   of   Marine 
and  the  Agent  of  Marine. 

The  two  factions  during  the  Revolution  210 
Supremacy  of  the  "dispersive  school".  211 
The  "concentrative  school"  in  1780. ...  212 
Agitation  for  administrative  reform.. .  .  213 
The  success  of  the  "concentrative 

school" 214 

Establishment  of  the  office  of  Secretary 

of  Marine,  February,  1781 216 

Duties  of  the  Secretary  of  Marine 216 

Appointment   of  McDougall   as   Secre 
tary  of  Marine 217 

Failure  to  obtain  a  Secretary  of  Ma 
rine 218 

Robert  Morris  and  the  naval   business.   218 
Reorganization   of   the  Naval   Depart 
ment 220 

The  Agent  of  Marine 223 

Robert  Morris  as  Agent  of  Marine 226 

The  organization  of  the  Naval  Depart 
ment  under  Morris 227 

Reports  of  the  Agent  of  Marine 228 

Naval  legislation  under  the  Agent  of 
Marine..  .   228 


i8  Contents 


The  court-martialing  of  three  seamen. .  230 
Morris  and  the  control  of  the  fleet.  . .  .  234 

The  strength  of  the  navy 235 

Success  and  failure  of  the  fleet 235 

The  cruise  of  the  "Alliance,"  1782-1783  236 
The  capture  of  the  "Trumbull"  by  the 

"Iris" 238 

Attempts  of  Morris  to  increase  the  navy  239 
Morris's  views  after  the  treaty  of  peace  244 
Congress  goes  out  of  the  naval  business  245 

Settling  of  the  naval  accounts 245 

Disposing  of  the  naval  vessels 247 

Retirement  of  the  Agent  of  Marine.  . .  .  250 
The  end  of  the  naval  business 250 

CHAPTER  IX. — Naval   Duties   of   American 
Representatives  in  Foreign  Countries. 

Mutual  interests  of  the  United  States 

and  France 252 

Duties  of  the  Naval  Office  at  Paris.  ...  252 

Personnel  of  the  Naval  Office 254 

Communication  with  the  Naval  Office..  255 

Agents  of  the  Naval  Office 256 

Appointment  and  recommendation  of 

officers 257 

Privateers 260 

The  purchase  and  construction  of  ves 
sels 261 

The  fitting  out  of  vessels 265 

The  trial  of  prize  cases 266 

American  prisoners 267 

Breaches  of  neutrality 273 


Contents  19 


Miscellaneous  duties 274 

The  Naval  Office  a  channel  of  naval  in 
telligence 276 

Naval  plans  of  the  Naval  Office 276 

Plan  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Af 
fairs 278 

CHAPTER  X. — Naval    Duties    of    American 

Representatives  in  Foreign    Countries. 

Continued. 

Work  of  the  Naval  Office  in  1777 281 

Attempts  to  obtain  the  freedom  of 
French  ports 282 

The  first  prizes  of  the  "Reprisal".  ...    283 

Difficulties  between  the  English  and  the 
French  governments 284 

The  American  Commissioners  and  the 
French  government 285 

The  cruise  of  the  "Reprisal,"  February, 
1777 286 

The  cruise  of  Conyngham  in  the  "Sur 
prise" 287 

The  cruise  of  the  "Reprisal,"  "Lexing 
ton,"  and  "Dolphin" 287 

Strained  relations  between  the  Commis 
sioners  and  the  French  Court 289 

The  cruise  of  Conyngham  in  the  "Re 
venge" 290 

Departure  of  the  "Reprisal"  and  the 
"Lexington" 291 

Naval  movements  in  1778 292 

The  cruise  of  Captain  Jones  in  the 
"Ranger" 293 


20  Contents 


The  Naval  Office  at  Paris,  1779-1780  .  .  294 
John  Paul  Jones  and  Peter  Landais  .  .  294 
Plan  for  an  expedition  against  England  295 
The  cruise  of  Captain  Jones  in  the  "  Bon 

Homme  Richard" 295 

Dispute  between  Jones  and  Landais...  .    298 

Their  departure   for  America 300 

The  trials  of  Franklin 300 

Work  of  the  Naval  Office,  1781-1783.    301 
Thomas  Barclay,   consul   and   commis 
sioner 302 

John  Paul  Jones,  agent  for  settling  ac 
counts 303 

Naval  stations  in  the  West  Indies 305 

Duties    and    work   of   the    commercial 

agent  at  Martinique 305 

Naval  affairs  on  the  Mississippi 307 

Oliver  Pollock  and  Galvez 307 

Pollock  and   privateers 308 

Pollock  and  the  "Rebecca" 308 

The  " West  Florida"..  310 


THE    STATE    NAVIES 


CHAPTER  XL — The  Navy  of  Massachusetts. 

The  state  craft 315 

Naval  administration  in  the  states.  ...  316 

The  problems  of  naval  warfare 317 

Military    situation    in    Massachusetts, 

1775 318 

Action  of  the  Provincial  Congress 318 


Contents  21 


Massachusetts  seaports  ask  for  naval 

aid 319 

Act  establishing  privateering  and  prize 

courts,  November  1,  1775 320 

Subsequent  naval  activities  of  the  Gen 
eral  court,  1775 323 

The  fitting  out  of  a  fleet,  1776 324 

Naval  legislation,  1776 325 

Remodelling  of  the  law  of  November  1, 

1775 327 

Orders  to  naval  officers — a  sample.  . .  .  328 
Establishment  of  a  Board  of  War,  Oc 
tober,  1776 329 

Duties  of  the  Board  of  War 330 

A  new  naval  establishment 333 

Naval  rules  and  regulations 334 

Naval  increases,  1777-1779 335 

Launching  of  the  "Protector" 336 

Naval  administration,  1779-1783 337 

Naval  increases,  1780-1783 338 

Massachusetts  privateers 339 

The  cruises  of  the  state  fleet 341 

Cooperation  of   state  vessels  and  priva 
teers 344 

The  engagements  of  the  state  vessels— 

a  sample 345 

The  Penobscot  expedition 347 

Losses  of  the  state  fleet 352 

The  end  of  the  navy 353 

CHAPTER  XII. — The  Navy  of  Connecticut. 

The  Revolutionary  government  of  Con 
necticut.  .                                               .  354 


22  Contents 


Fitting  out  of  the  "Minerva"  and  the 

"Spy" 355 

Failure  and  discharge  of  the  "Miner 
va" 357 

The  "Defence"  and  the  "Oliver  Crom 
well" 358 

The  building  of  three  row-galleys, ....  360 
Naval  duties  of  the  Governor  and  the 

Council  of  Safety 360 

Naval  agents 361 

New  London  and  Nathaniel  Shaw,  jr. .  362 

Bushnell's  submarine  boat 363 

Privateers  and  prize  courts 364 

Naval  pensions 366 

Naval  rules  and  regulations 366 

A  new  naval  establishment,  1779 366 

Cruises  of  the  navy 367 

Losses  of  the  navy 369 

Warfare  of  whale-boats  on  Long  Island 

Sound 370 

CHAPTER  XIII. — The    Navy     of     Pennsyl 
vania. 

Objects  of  naval  enterprise  in  Pennsyl 
vania 373 

The  fleet  of  galleys 373 

Rules  and  regulations 375 

The  "Montgomery" 375 

Strength  of  the  navy,  August,  1776..  .  376 

Naval  uniforms  and  flag 377 

Organs  of  naval  administration 377 

Commodores  of  the  navy 378 

Naval  pay  and  the  sharing  of  prizes.  .  380 


The  Pennsylvania  Navy  Board 381 

Work  of  the  Navy  Board 382 

The  navy  in  1777 383 

Services  rendered  by  the  fleet 383 

The  campaign  on  the  Delaware,  1777- 

1778 384 

Trials  for  desertion 386 

The  Navy  Board,  1777-1778 387 

The  fleet,  April- July,  1778 388 

Sale  of  the  fleet  and  dismissal  of  the 

Navy  Board 388 

The  "  General  Greene/'  1779 390 

Naval  legislation 391 

Privateers 392 

Commissioners  for  the  defence  of  the 

Delaware 393 

The  "Hyder  Ally"  and  "  Washington"  394 
The  end  of  the  navy 395 

CHAPTER  XIV. — The  Navy  of  Virginia. 

Lord  Dunmore's  movements  in  Virgin 
ia,  1775 396 

Authorization   of    a   navy,    December, 

1775 396 

Work  of  the  Committee  of  Safety 397 

The  "  Potomac  River  fleet" 398 

The  Virginia  Navy  Board 398 

Duties  of  the  Navy  Board 399 

The  location  of  shipyards 400 

Naval  manufactories  and  magazines. .  .  401 

James  Maxwell,  naval  agent 401 

Naval  officers 401 

Naval  increases,  1776 402 


24  Contents 


Courts  of  Admiralty 403 

Privateers 405 

The  vessels  of  the  Virginia  navy 405 

Condition   and   services   of   the   navy, 

1775-1779 407 

Losses  of  the  navy,  1775-1779 408 

The  Board  of  War  and  the  Naval  Com 
missioner 408 

The  Commissioner  of  the  Navy 409 

Military  situation  in  the  South  in  1780  410 

Naval  legislation,  1780 411 

The  raid  of  Arnold  and  Phillips,  1781.    413 

The  navy  at  Yorktown ; 415 

Dismissal  of  the  officers,  seamen,  and 

Commissioner 415 

Virginia's  defence  of  Chesapeake  Bay, 

1782-1783 415 

The  end  of  the  navy 416 

CHAPTER  XV. — The  Navy  of  South  Caro 
lina. 

First  naval  enterprises  of  South  Caro 
lina 418 

Events  of  September,  1775 419 

The  "Defence" 420 

Work  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  No 
vember,  1775 420 

Work  of  the  Committee  of  Safety,  De 
cember,  1775 421 

The  mission  of  Cochran 421 

Naval  legislation,  February-March,  1776  422 

The  Constitution  of  1776 423 

Naval  legislation,  April,  1776 423 


South  Carolina  Navy  Board 424 

Work   and   organization   of  the   Navy 

Board 424 

Naval  legislation,  1777-1778 427 

Naval  increases,  1776-1779 428 

Privateers 429 

Services  rendered  by  the  South  Caro 
lina  navy,  1776-1779 429 

The  "  Randolph"  and  the  State  fleet. . .  430 
The  campaign  against  Charleston,  1779- 

1780 431 

The  navy  in  1781  and  1783 434 

Commodore  Gillon  and  the  "  South  Car 
olina" 435 

Gillon  in  Europe 436 

The    "South    Carolina"    in    European 

waters 436 

The  expedition  against  the  Bahamas.  .  438 

The  " South  Carolina"  at  Philadelphia.  439 

Capture  of  the  "  South  Carolina" 439 

Settlement  of  the  Luxembourg  claims. .  439 

CHAPTER  XVI. — The  Minor  Navies  of  the 
Southern  States. 

Organs     of     naval     administration   in 

Maryland 441 

Work  of  the  Maryland  Provincial  Con 
vention,  1776 441 

Work    of  the  Maryland  Committee  of 

Safety,  1776 441 

Maryland  vessels 442 

Recruiting  of  the  navy 443 

Naval  officers. .  .    443 


26  Contents 


Court  of  Admiralty 444 

Maryland  privateers 444 

Sale  of  naval  vessels,  1779 444 

Naval  conditions,  1779-1783 445 

Acts  for  the  defence  of  the  Chesapeake  445 

Transporting  of  the  Continental  army.  446 

British  depredations,  1782-1783 446 

Commissioners  for  the  defence  of  the 

Bay 447 

Services  rendered  by  the  Maryland 

navy 448 

The  Battle  of  the  Barges 449 

End  of  the  Maryland  navy 451 

The  navy  of  North  Carolina,  December, 

1775-May,  1776 451 

The  "Washington,"  "Pennsylvania 

Farmer,"  and  "King  Tammany".. .  .  452 

The  defence  of  Ocracoke  Inlet 454 

Services  of  the  "Caswell" 456 

North  Carolina  admiralty  courts  and 

privateers 459 

Georgia's  first  naval  enterprise 459 

Naval  preparations 460 

Georgia's  galleys 460 

Georgia's  prize  court 462 

CHAPTER  XVII. — The  Minor  Navies  of  the 
Northern  States. 

British  depredations  in  Rhode  Island, 

1775 463 

Naval  operations 463 

The  "Katy"  and  "  Washington" 464 


Contents  27 


The  "Washington"  and  " Spitfire'''*  gal 
leys 465 

Organs  of  naval  administration 466 

Prize  court  and  privateers 467 

An  attempted  naval  increase,  1777 468 

Cooperation  of  Rhode  Island  with  Con 
gress,  1778-1779 468 

The  "Pigot"  and  the  "Argo" 469 

The  "Rover" -.   470 

Naval  preparations  in  New  York 471 

New  York's  naval  establishment 472 

Washington  and  the  New  York  vessels  473 

Services  of  the  New  York  fleet 474 

Additional  facts  about  naval  affairs  in 

New  York 475 

New  Hampshire  and  the  Penobscot  ex 
pedition 476 

New    Hampshire   privateers    and  prize 

court 476 

Naval  suggestions  of  New  Jersey 477 


APPENDICES 

A  bibliography 481 

A  list  of  commissioned  officers  in  the 

Continental  Navy 506 

A  list  of  commissioned  officers  in  the 

Continental  Marine  Corps 512 

A  list  of  armed  vessels ,  .  516 


PART  I 
THE  CONTINENTAL  NAVY 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  NAVAL  COMMITTEE 

The  history  of  the  Continental  navy  cov 
ers  a  period  of  ten  years,  extending  from 
1775  to  1785.  During  this  time  the  Conti 
nental  Congress  made  many  experiments  in 
naval  legislation  and  devised  several  organs 
of  naval  administration.  The  first  of  these 
organs,  with  whose  origin  and  work  this 
chapter  is  concerned,  was  the  Naval  Com 
mittee.  It  lasted  for  only  a  few  months.  Its 
lineal  successors,  each  of  which  will  be  duly 
considered,  were  the  Marine  Committee,  the 
Board  of  Admiralty,  and  the  Agent  of  Ma 
rine.  These  four  executive  organs,  for  the 
most  part,  administered  the  Continental 
navy.  Certain  odds  and  ends  of  the  naval 
business,  however,  fell  to  the  commander- 
in-chief  of  the  army  and  his  officers,  and  to 
the  American  representatives  in  foreign 
countries.  The  second  chapter  will  treat  of 
the  fleets  of  the  army,  and  the  closing  chap 
ters  of  the  narrative  of  the  Continental  navy 
will  consider  the  naval  services  of  our  rep 
resentatives  in  foreign  lands. 

In  maritime  countries  the  military  service 
is  generally  ambidextrous.  Whether  the 


32     Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

army  or  navy  is  first  brought  into  play  at 
the  opening  of  a  war  depends  upon  various 
circumstances.  The  presence  <of  a  British 
army  at  Boston,  already  on  colonial  soil, 
when  the  American  Resolution  broke  out 
early  in  1775,  naturally  led  to  the  immediate 
organization  of  an  army  by  the  colonists. 
The  need  of  a  navy  was  at  this  time  not  quite 
so  insistent.  Moreover,  the  building,  or 
even  the  purchase,  of  an  armed  fleet  required 
more  time  than  did  the  raising  of  an  army, 
which  was  rendered  comparatively  easy  by 
the  previous  training  of  the  colonists  in  the 
local  militia.  Nevertheless,  since  both 
countries  engaged  in  the  war  were  maritime, 
the  creating  of  a  navy  could  not  long  be 
delayed. 

The  reader  recollects  that  by  the  middle 
of  1775  the  battles  of  Lexington,  Concord, 
and  Bunker  Hill  had  been  fought,  a  Conti 
nental  army  had  been  organized,  and  Wash 
ington  had  been  made  commander-in-chief. 
Outside  of  Congress  the  agitation  in  behalf 
of  a  Continental  navy  had  begun.  That  the 
first  suggestions  and  advances  for  a  navy 
should  come  from  New  England,  where  the 
concrete  problems  of  the  defence  of  her  ports 
and  coasts  were  being  faced,  was  to  be  ex 
pected.  One  of  the  first  men  to  make  such 
suggestions  was  Josiah  Quincy  of  Massa 
chusetts.  On  July  11,  1775,  he  wrote  to 
John  Adams  in  Philadelphia  that  the  best 
method  of  securing  the  coastwise  naviga- 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     33 

tion  of  the  colonies  was  by  row-galleys.  He 
then  continued:  "As  the  whole  Continent 
is  so  firmly  united,  why  not  a  Number  of 
Vessels  of  War  be  fitted  out  and  judiciously 
stationed,  so  as  to  intercept  and  prevent 
any  supplies  going  to  our  Enemies ;  and  con 
sequently,  unless  they  can  make  an  Impres 
sion  inland,  they  must  leave  the  Country  or 
starve."1  The  first  formal  movement  in 
behalf  of  a  Continental  navy  came  from 
Rhode  Island,  which  state  was  during  the 
summer  of  1775  suffering  serious  annoyances 
from  the  British  ships.  On  August  26  her 
legislature  instructed  the  Rhode  Island  dele 
gates  to  the  Continental  Congress  to  use 
their  influence  at  the  ensuing  session  of 
Congress  to  obtain  a  fleet  for  the  protection 
of  the  colonies.2  On  September  2,  1775, 
Washington,  in  order  to  prevent  reinforce 
ments  from  reaching  the  enemy  at  Boston, 
instructed  Nicholson  Broughton  to  proceed 
in  the  schooner  " Hannah"  on  a  cruise 
against  the  British  transports.3 

1.  Manuscript     Letters    of    John     Adams, 
lodged  with  the  Massachusetts  Historical  So 
ciety  by  Mr.  Charles  Francis  Adams,  who  kind 
ly  permitted  the  writer  to  see  them. 

2.  See    Chapter    III,    The  Organization  of 
the  Marine  Committee. 

3.  See  Chapter  1 1 ,  The  Fleets  of  Washington 
and  Arnold.      After  a  thorough  investigation 
and  study  of  the  sources  of  the  early  history 
of  the  Continental  navy,   I  am  compelled  to 
reject  many  of  the  statements  and  conclusions 
found  in  Chapter  II,   Volume  I,  of  Augustus 


34     Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

That  the  question  of  providing  a  Conti 
nental  navy  would  come  up  during  the  fall 
session  of  Congress  was  certain.  The  argu 
ments  in  its  behalf,  which  were  made  almost 
unanimously  later  in  the  session,  must  have 
been  on  the  lips  of  several  of  the  members 
when  they  assembled  in  Philadelphia  in 
September:  an  army  had  been  organized, 
why  not  a  navy?  The  situation  of  the  com 
batants,  separated  by  the  great  Atlantic 
highway;  and  their  character,  one  a  great 
naval  and  commercial  power,  and  the  other 
with  maritime  interests  by  no  means  incon 
siderable,  would  necessarily  make  the  im 
pending  struggle  in  no  small  part  a  naval 
one.  America  had  seacoasts  and  seaports 
to  be  defended,  a  coastwise  navigation  to 
be  secured,  and  above  all  commercial  and 
diplomatic  communications  with  foreign 
powers  to  be  kept  open.  These  communi 
cations  were  a  jugular  vein,  whose  severing 
would  mean  death  to  the  United  Colonies. 
The  urgent  and  specific  calls  for  armed 
vessels,  which  were  being  made,  must  be 
met  at  once.  Had  not  America  conven 
iently  at  hand  materials  for  ships,  and 
abundant  men  who  had  the  "  habit  of  the 
sea"? 

In  the  early  months  of  the  session  there 
certainly  would  arise  opposition  to  the  new 
military  project.  The  inertia  and  conserv- 

C.    Buell's  book,   Paul  Jones,   Founder  of  the 
American  Navy. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     35 

atism  of  some  of  the  members  would  set 
them  against  so  great  an  innovation.  To 
others  the  fitting  out  of  a  fleet,  at  a  time 
when  the  length,  seriousness,  and  meaning 
of  the  war  with  the  motherland  were  but 
half  unveiled,  would  seem  an  unwise  and 
hasty  action. 

The  question  of  procuring  a  fleet  of  armed 
vessels  was  first  brought  to  the  attention 
of  Congress  on  October  3,  1775,  when  the 
Rhode  Island  members  presented  their  in 
structions,  an  account  of  which  wrill  be  given 
in  a  succeeding  chapter.1  It  is  sufficient  for 
present  purposes  to  say  that  until  Decem 
ber  the  Rhode  Island  instructions  had  lit 
tle  other  result  beyond  crystallizing  and  clar 
ifying  opinion  on  naval  affairs  by  means  of 
the  debates  which  they  caused  in  Congress. 

On  October  5  sundry  letters  from  London 
were  laid  before  the  Congress  and  read. 
They  conveyed  the  intelligence  of  "the  sail 
ing  of  two  north  country  built  brigs,  of  no 
force,  from  England,  on  the  llth  of  August 
last,  loaded  with  arms,  powder,  and  other 
stores,  for  Quebec,  without  convoy."  Con 
gress  at  once  saw  the  importance  of  captur 
ing  these  two  vessels,  in  order  both  to  de 
prive  the  British  of  these  stores  and  to  ob 
tain  them  for  the  Continental  army  around 
Boston,  which  sorely  needed  all  the  muni 
tions  of  war  it  could  get.  A  motion  was 

1.  See  Chapter  III,  The  Organization  of 
the  Marine  Committee. 


36     A^ai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

therefore  made  that  a  committee  of  three 
be  appointed  to  prepare  a  plan  for  inter 
cepting  the  two  brigs,  and  that  it  "  proceed 
on  this  business  immediately."1  John  Ad 
ams  in  his  autobiography  says  that  the  oppo 
sition  to  this  motion  was  "very  loud  and 
vehement,"  and  included  some  of  his  own 
colleagues,  and  also  especially  Edward  Rut- 
ledge  of  South  Carolina.  It  seems  to  have 
been  recognized  that  the  carrying  of  the 
motion  would  be  the  initial  step  in  the  es 
tablishment  of  a  Continental  navy.  Such 
an  undertaking  its  opponents  declared,  with 
a  greater  display  of  rhetoric  than  judgment, 
was  the  "most  wild,  visionary,  mad  project 
that  ever  had  been  imagined.  It  was  an 
infant  taking  a  mad  bull  by  his  horns;  and 
what  was  more  profound  and  remote,  it 
was  said  it  would  ruin  the  character  and  cor 
rupt  the  morals  of  all  our  seamen.  It  would 
make  them  selfish,  piratical,  mercenary, 
bent  wholly  upon  plunder,  etc.,  etc."  The 
friends  of  the  motion,  in  colors  equally  glow 
ing,  set  forth  "the  great  advantages  of  dis 
tressing  the  enemy,  supplying  ourselves,  and 
beginning  a  system  of  maritime  and  naval 
operations."  On  the  taking  of  the  vote  the 
motion  passed  in  the  affirmative;  and  ac- 


1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Octo 
ber  5,  1775.  Waite,  H.  E.,  Origin  of  Ameri 
can  Navy,  1-5,  containing  letters  of  John 
Adams,  Elbridge  Gerry,  and  John  Langdon, 
written  in  1813. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     37 

cording  to  John  Adams's  recollection,  he, 
John  Langdon  of  New  Hampshire,  and 
Silas  Deane  of  Connecticut,  "three  members 
who  had  expressed  much  zeal  in  favor  of 
the  motion, "  composed  the  committee.1 

A  little  later  on  the  same  day  this  com 
mittee  reported;  and  thereupon  Congress 
decided  to  write  a  letter  to  Washington  di 
recting  him  to  obtain  from  the  Council  of 
Massachusetts  two  of  that  state's  cruisers, 
and  to  despatch  them  on  the  errand  of  inter 
cepting  the  two  supply  ships.  It  also  di 
rected  that  letters  be  written  to  the  gov 
ernors  of  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  ask 
ing  for  the  loan  of  some  of  their  armed 
vessels,  which  were  to  be  sent  on  the  same 
mission.  "The  committee  appointed  to 
prepare  a  plan  for  intercepting  the  two  ves 
sels  bound  to  Canada  "  made  another  report 
on  the  6th,  which  was  ordered  to  lie  on  the 
table  "for  the  perusal  of  the  members."2 
This  report  was  acted  upon  on  October  13, 
when  Congress  decided  to  fit  out  two  armed 
vessels,  one  of  ten  and  the  other  of  four 
teen  guns,  to  cruise  three  months  to  the 


1.  Works  of  John  Adams,  III,  7,  8.      I  have 
accepted  the  account  of  this  debate  as  found 
in  John  Adams's  autobiography,  although  it 
is  possible  that  writing  many  years  after  its 
occurrence  Adams  may  have  confused  it  with 
the  debate  of  October  7  on  the  Rhode  Island 
resolutions. — Works  of  John  Adams,  I,  187. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress    Octo 
ber  6,  1775. 


38     ATavy  of  the  American  Revolution 

eastward  for  the  purpose  of  intercepting  the 
enemy's  transports  laden  with  warlike  stores 
and  other  supplies.  A  committee  consist 
ing  of  Silas  Deane,  John  Langdon,  and 
Christopher  Gadsden  of  South  Carolina  was 
appointed  to  estimate  the  expense  which 
would  be  incurred  in  fitting  out  the  two 
vessels.1 

In  four  days  this  new  committee  reported 
an  estimate,  which  was  unsatisfactory  and 
was  recommitted.2  When  it  again  reported 
on  October  30,  two  more  vessels,  one  to 
mount  not  more  than  twenty  and  the  other 
not  more  than  thirty-six  guns,  were  ordered 
to  be  prepared  for  sea,  and  "to  be  employed 
in  such  manner,  for  the  protection  and  de 
fence  of  the  United  Colonies,  as  the  Congress 
shall  direct."  It  should  be  noted  that  the 
two  vessels  for  which  provision  was  now 
made  were  to  engage  in  the  defence  of  the 
colonies,  and  not  merely  in  the  interception 
of  transports,  an  indication  of  an  advance 
in  the  naval  policy  of  Congress.  Four  ad 
ditional  members  were  now  added  to  the 
committee,  Stephen  Hopkins  of  Rhode  Is 
land,  Joseph  Hewes  of  North  Carolina,  R.  H. 
Lee  of  Virginia,  and  John  Adams  of  Massa 
chusetts.3  This  reconstituted  committee 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Octo 
ber  13, 1775.     The  armament  of  the  second  ves 
sel  was  not  determined  until  October  30,  1775. 

2.  Ibid.,  October  17,  1775. 

3.  Ibid.,  October  30,  1775.     John  Adams, 
in  his  Notes  on  Debates  for  October  30,  1775, 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     39 

composed  of  seven  members  was  sometimes 
called  "the  committee  for  fitting  out  armed 
vessels/'  occasionally  the  "Marine  Com 
mittee/'  but  most  frequently  the  "Naval 
Committee."  It  secured  for  its  use  a  room 
in  a  public  house  in  Philadelphia,  and  in 
order  that  there  should  be  no  conflict  be 
tween  its  meetings  and  those  of  Congress, 
it  fixed  its  hours  from  six  in  the  evening 
until  the  close  of  its  business.  Its  sessions 
were  sometimes  pleasantly  continued,  even 
until  midnight,  by  conversational  diver 
sions,  marked  by  a  rich  flow  of  soul,  history, 
poetry,  wine,  and  Jamaica  rum. 

John  Adams,  who  always  wrote  pungent- 
ly,  has  left  us  a  lively  picture  of  the  Naval 
Committee.  His  description  makes  it  clear 
that  the  deliberations  of  this  committee  were 
not  always  marked  by  that  exalted  serious 
ness  and  impassive  dignity,  which  we  too 
habitually  ascribe  to  the  Revolutionary 
Fathers.  "The  pleasantest  part  of  my  la 
bors  for  the  four  years  I  spent  in  Congress 
from  1774  to  1778,"  he  said,  "was  in  this 
Naval  Committee.  Mr.  Lee,  Mr.  Gadsden, 
were  sensible  men,  and  very  cheerful,  but 
Governor  Hopkins  of  Rhode  Island,  above 

reports  George  Ross  of  Pennsylvania  as  say 
ing:  "We  can't  get  seamen  to  man  four  ves 
sels.  We  could  not  get  seamen  to  man  our 
boats,  our  galleys."  Adams  also  tells  us  that 
three  of  the  Virginia  members,  Wythe,  Nel 
son,  and  Lee,  were  "for  fitting  out  four  ships." 
—Works  of  John  Adams,  II,  484. 


40     A'avy  of  the  American  Revolution 

seventy  years  of  age,  kept  us  all  alive.  Upon 
business,  his  experience  and  judgment  were 
very  useful.  But  when  the  business  of  the 
evening  was  over,  he  kept  us  in  conversa 
tion  till  eleven,  and  sometimes  twelve  o'clock. 
His  custom  was  to  drink  nothing  all  day, 
nor  till  eight  o'clock  in  the  evening,  and 
then  his  beverage  was  Jamaica  spirit  and 
water.  It  gave  him  wit,  humor,  anecdotes, 
science,  and  learning.  He  had  read  Greek, 
Roman,  and  British  history,  and  was  familiar 
with  English  poetry,  particularly  Pope, 
Thomson,  and  Milton,  and  the  flow  of  his 
soul  made  all  of  his  reading  our  own,  and 
seemed  to  bring  to  recollection  in  all  of  us, 
all  we  had  ever  read.  I  could  neither  eat 
nor  drink  in  these  days.  The  other  gentle 
men  were  very  temperate.  Hopkins  never 
drank  to  excess,  but  all  he  drank  was  im 
mediately  not  only  converted  into  wit, 
sense,  knowledge,  and  good  humor,  but  in 
spired  us  with  similar  qualities."1 

The  active  life  of  the  Naval  Committee 
lasted  from  October,  1775,  until  January, 
1776,  during  which  time  it  laid  the  founda 
tions  of  the  navy.  Its  chairman  in  January, 
1776,  was  Stephen  Hopkins;  whether  he 
was  the  first  to  fill  this  position  is  not  known. 
His  knowledge  of  the  business  of  shipping 
made  him  particularly  useful  to  the  Com 
mittee.2  The  accounts  of  the  Naval  Com- 

~T      Works  of  John  Adams,  III,  9,  12. 

2.  Appleton's  Cyclopedia  of  American  Bi 
ography,  III,  259. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     41 

mittee  were  kept  by  Joseph  Hewes,  who 
was  settling  them  with  the  Board  of  Treas 
ury  in  September,  1776.1  Early  in  Decem 
ber,  1775,  John  Adams  returned  home,  and 
by  January  only  four  members  of  the  Com 
mittee  were  left  to  transact  its  business. 

In  October  Congress  ordered  the  fitting  out 
of  four  vessels,  and  appointed  the  Naval  Com 
mittee,  but  did  nothing  more.  By  the  first 
of  November  the  sentiment  of  Congress  was 
setting  strongly  towards  organizing  a  navy. 
In  its  debates  on  the  State  of  Trade  during 
the  latter  half  of  October  the  necessity  of 
having  a  navy  in  order  both  to  defend  the 
colonial  commerce  and  to  carry  on  the  war 
was  generally  recognized.2  The  members 
from  the  South  were  as  a  rule  now  lining 
up  with  those  of  the  North  in  behalf  of  a 
naval  armament.  Events  had  happened 
and  were  daily  happening  in  New  England 
which  were  convincing  the  doubtful  mem 
bers  of  Congress.  As  a  military  necessity 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Sep 
tember  19,  1776. 

2.  Works  of  John   Adams,  II,  469-83.     In 
one    of    these    debates,    according    to    Adams, 
George  Wythe  of  Virginia  said:     "Why  should 
not    America    have    a    navy?      No    maritime 

?ower  near  the  seacoast  can  be  safe  without  it. 
t  is  no  chimera.  The  Romans  suddenly  built 
one  in  their  Carthaginian  war.  Why  may  not 
we  lay  a  foundation  for  it  ?  We  abound  with 
firs,  iron  ore,  tar,  pitch,  turpentine;  we  have  all 
the  materials  for  the  construction  of  a  navy." 
— Works  of  John  Adams,  II,  479. 


42     Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

for  conducting  the  siege  of  Boston,  and  with 
no  intention  whatever  to  create  a  navy,  as 
such,  Washington  had  obtained  seven  small 
cruisers,  and  either  had  sent  or  was  sending 
them  to  sea  in  pursuit  of  the  enemy's  trans 
ports.  The  logic  of  events  had  forced  him, 
on  his  own  responsibility,  to  create  a  little 
fleet  of  his  own.1 

With  the  passage  of  each  day,  the  gap 
between  the  mother-country  and  her  revolt 
ing  subjects  widened,  and  the  feeling  be 
came  stronger  and  more  general  that  an 
irrepressible  war,  which  must  be  fought  to 
a  just  conclusion,  had  begun.  W^hat  in 
October  seemed  chimerical,  might  in  No 
vember  appear  practicable. 

Beginning  with  November  the  naval  legis 
lation  of  Congress  moved  rapidly.  The  duty 
of  preparing  much  of  it  naturally  fell  to 
the  Naval  Committee.  Its  work  in  large 
part  may  be  found  in  the  Journals  of  the 
Continental  Congress  for  November  and 
December,  1775,  and  January,  1776.  A 
brief  summary  of  the  most  important  Con 
gressional  resolutions  for  this  period  will  be 
here  presented. 

On  November  2,  1775,  Congress  voted 
$100,000  for  the  work  of  the  Naval  Com 
mittee,  and  empowered  it  "to  agree  with 
such  officers  and  seamen  as  are  proper  to 
man  and  command' '  the  four  vessels  already 

1.  See  Chapter  II,;The  Fleets  of  Washington 
and  Arnold. 


Xary  of  the  American  Revolution     43 

ordered  to  be  prepared  for  sea.  Congress 
also  fixed  the  "encouragement"  of  the  offi 
cers  and  seamen  at  "one-half  of  all  ships  of 
war  made  prize  of  by  them,  and  one-third 
of  all  transport  vessels."1 

On  November  10  the  first  legislation  relat 
ing  to  the  Marine  Corps  of  the  United  States 
was  passed.  Two  battalions,  which  were  to 
be  called  "the  first  and  second  battalions  of 
American  Marines/'  were  to  be  raised,  con 
sisting  of  one  colonel,  two  lieutenant-colo 
nels,  two  majors,  and  "other  officers  as  usual 
in  other  regiments."  There  is  some  doubt 
whether  Congress  fully  understood  the 
duties  of  marines,  for  it  provided  that  "no 
persons  be  appointed  to  office,  or  inlisted 
into  said  Battalions,  but  such  as  are  good 
seamen,  or  so  acquainted  with  maritime 
affairs  as  to  be  able  to  serve  to  advantage 
by  sea  when  required."2  Such  a  require 
ment  seems  to  overlook  the  fact  that  the 
duties  of  marines  are  military  in  character, 
rather  than  naval. 

The  Naval  Committee  made  what  prob 
ably  was  its  most  important  report  on  No- 


1.  Journals   of   Continental   Congress,    No 
vember  2,  1775. 

2.  Ibid.,  November  10.      Congress  first  or 
dered  the  marines  to  be  raised  from  the  Con 
tinental  army,  but  on  the  objecting  of  Wash 
ington  to  such  weakening  of  his  forces,  they 
were  directed  to  be  raised  independent  of  the 
army. — Journals,     November     10,     30,      1775; 
Ford,  Writings  of  Washington,   III,  225,  274. 


44     A'oz'j'  of  the  American  Revolution 

vember  23,  when  it  laid  before  Congress  "a 
draught  of  rules  for  the  government  of  the 
American  navy,  and  articles  to  be  signed  by 
the  officers  and  men  employed  in  that  serv 
ice."  On  the  25th  and  28th  of  November, 
these  were  debated  by  paragraphs  and 
after  slight  amendment  were  adopted.1  The 
rules,  eight  or  ten  pages  in  length,  are  brev 
ity  itself  as  compared  with  the  present  rules 
and  regulations  of  the  United  States  navy, 
which  make  a  book  of  some  six  hundred 
pages.  More  than  one-half  of  the  navy's 
first  rules  are  concerned  with  the  feeding, 
care,  rights,  duties,  and  punishments  of  the 
ordinary  sailor;  while  the  present  rules  of  the 
American  navy  in  large  part  apply  to  officers. 
A  few  of  the  provisions  of  these  old  rules 
are  worthy  of  notice.  The  commanders  of 
ships  of  the  thirteen  united  colonies  were 
"to  take  care  that  divine  service  be  per 
formed  twice  a  day  on  board,  and  a  sermon 
preached  on  Sundays,  unless  bad  weather 
or  other  extraordinary  accidents  prevent." 
Sailors  were  to  be  punished  for  swearing  by 
the  wearing  of  a  wooden  collar,  "or  some 
other  shameful  badge  of  distinction."  Sail 
ors  were  to  be  put  in  irons  for  drunkenness ; 
while  officers  guilty  of  the  same  offense  for 
feited  two  days'  pay.  The  extreme  punish 
ment  which  an  officer  might  inflict  on  a  sea 
man  was  "twelve  lashes  upon  his  bare  back, 

1.     Journals  of  Continental  Congress,   No 
vember  23,  25,  28,  1775. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     45 

with  a  cat  of  nine  tails."  In  case  a  sailor 
deserved  greater  punishment,  he  must  be 
tried  by  a  court-martial,  which  should  con 
sist  of  "at  least  three  captains  and  three 
first  lieutenants,  with  three  captains  and 
three  first  lieutenants  of  marines,  if  there 
shall  be  so  many  of  the  marines  then  pres 
ent,  and  the  eldest  captain  shall  preside." 
A  penal  code  was  established.  A  court-mar 
tial  might  inflict  death  for  desertion,  mutiny, 
or  murder. 

Rations  for  the  sailors  were  fixed  by  these 
old  rules  for  each  day  of  the  week.  Satur 
day's  bill  of  fare,  which  consisted  of  "1  Ib. 
bread,  1  Ib.  pork,  half  pint  peas,  and  four 
ounces  cheese,"  may  be  taken  as  a  sample 
one.  Each  seaman  was  given  a  half-pint  of 
rum  a  day,  with  a  "discretionary  allowance 
on  extra  duty,  and  in  time  of  engagement." 
The  following  provision,  for  keeping  the  eat 
ables  sweet  and  palatable,  is  noted:  "The 
captain  is  frequently  to  order  the  proper 
officers  to  inspect  the  condition  of  the  pro 
visions,  and  if  the  bread  proves  damp,  to 
have  it  aired  upon  the  quarter  deck  or  poop, 
and  also  examine  the  flesh  cask,  and  if  any 
of  the  pickle  be  leaked  out,  to  have  new 
made  and  put  in,  and  the  cask  made  tight 
and  secure." 

The  following  naval  offices  were  estab 
lished;  the  first  two  only  wrere  commis 
sioned:  captain,  lieutenant,  master,  mas 
ter's  mate,  boatswain,  boatswain's  first  mate, 


46     ATaz'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

boatswain's  second  mate,  gunner,  gunner's 
mate,  surgeon,  surgeon's  mate,  carpenter, 
carpenter's  mate,  cooper,  captain's  clerk, 
steward,  and  chaplain.  Five  marine  offices 
were  established;  the  highest  \vas  that  of 
captain.  A  pay-table  was  provided,  accord 
ing  to  which  the  monthly  wage  ranged 
form  $32  for  captains,  to  $6.67  for  able  sea 
men  and  marines.  According  to  the  form  of 
a  contract  of  enlistment  which  accompanied 
the  rules,  a  bounty  of  $400  was  to  be  deduct 
ed  from  the  proceeds  of  prizes  and  to  be 
paid  to  the  commander,  in  all  cases  where 
he  lost  a  limb  in  the  engagement,  or  was  in 
capacitated  from  earning  a  livelihood;  if 
the  commander  was  killed,  an  equal  sum 
was  to  be  paid  to  his  widow.  Minor  officers 
under  the  same  circumstances  received 
proportionately  smaller  sums.  The  man 
who  first  discovered  a  vessel  that  was  after 
wards  captured  was  rewarded  with  a  double 
share  of  prize  money;  he  who  first  boarded 
a  prize  was  entitled  to  a  treble  share. 
Ten  shares  of  every  prize  were  set  aside  "to 
be  given  to  such  inferior  officers,  seamen  and 
marines,  as  shall  be  adjudged  best  to  deserve 
them  by  the  superior  officers." 

These  rules,  which  were  in  force  through 
out  the  Revolution,  and  which  were  re- 
adopted  for  the  government  of  the  new  navy 
under  the  Constitution,1  were  drawn  up  by 

1.  Thomas  Clark,  Naval  History  of  United 
States,  II,  108. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     47 

John  Adams,  and  "examined,  discussed, 
and  corrected"  by  the  Naval  Committee. 
They  are  an  abridgment  and  adaptation  of 
parts  of  the  British  naval  statutes  and  regu 
lations  in  force  in  1775.  That  part  of 
Adams's  rules  which  constitutes  the  penal 
code  of  the  navy,  he  obtained  from  the  Nav 
al  Discipline  Act  passed  by  the  British  Par 
liament  in  1749. *  In  adapting  the  British 
code,  however,  he  made  it  less  stringent. 
The  British  also  found  it  advisable  in  1779 
to  lessen  the  severity  of  their  code.  The 
rest  of  Adams's  rules  are,  with  verbal 
changes  and  omissions,  chiefly  taken  from 
the  King's  Regulations  and  Admiralty  In 
structions  of  1772.  An  extract  from  the 
King's  regulations  followed  by  the  corre 
sponding  one  from  Adams's  rules  will  illus 
trate  the  closeness  of  the  parallelism:  "No 
Commander  shall  inflict  any  punishment 
upon  a  Seaman,  beyond  Twelve  Lashes  upon 
his  bare  Back  with  a  Cat  of  Nine  Tails,  ac 
cording  to  the  ancient  Practice  of  the  Sea."2 
"No  commander  shall  inflict  any  "punish 
ment  upon  a  seaman  beyond  twelve  lashes 
upon  his  bare  back,  with  a  cat  of  nine  tails." 

1.  Pickering's     Statutes,     22,     George     II, 
chapter  33;  title  of  act,  "An  act  for  amending, 
explaining,  and  reducing  into  one  Act  of  Par 
liament,  the  laws  relating  to  the  government 
of  his  Majesty's  ships,  vessels,  and  forces  by 
sea." 

2.  King's  Regulations  and  Admiralty  In 
structions  of  1772. 


48     A'az'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

An  additional  example  of  the  influence  of 
the  British  upon  the  American  navy  is  found 
in  the  fact  that  the  naval  offices  as  given 
above  were  already  established  in  the  navy 
of  the  Stuarts,  indeed,  many  of  them  in  the 
navy  of  Elizabeth.  The  Americans  were 
still  British  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution, 
and  they  intuitively  went  home,  so  to  speak, 
for  the  naval  models  with  which  they  were 
familiar. 

On  November  25,  1775,  Congress  enacted 
some  very  important  naval  legislation,  which 
in  John  Adams's  opinion  was  "the  true  ori 
gin  and  foundation  of  the  American  navy," 
and  in  producing  which  he  "had  at  least  as 
great  a  share as  any  man  liv 
ing."1  The  occasion  of  this  legislation  was 
certain  recommendations  of  Washington. 
On  October  5  he  requested  the  "determina 
tion  of  Congress,  as  to  the  property  and  dis 
posal  of  such  vessels  and  cargoes,  as  are  de 
signed  for  the  supply  of  the  enemy,  and  may 
fall  into  our  hands."  On  November  8  he 
pointed  out  the  necessity  of  establishing 
proper  admiralty  courts.  On  November  11 

~T  Works  of  John  Adams,  III,  11.  Certain 
words  of  John  Adams  in  a  letter  dated,  Phila 
delphia,  April  28,  1776,  have  an  interest  in  this 
connection :  V  I  have  vanity  enough  to  take  to 
myself  a  share  in  the  merit  of  the  American 
navy.  It  was  always  a  measure  that  my  heart 
was  much  engaged  in,  and  I  pursued  it  for  a 
long  time  against  the  wind  and  tide,  but  at 
last  obtained  it." — Force,  American  Archives, 
4th,  V,  1111. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution    49 

he  recommended  to  Congress  the  establish 
ment  of  an  admiralty  court  for  the  trial  of 
prize  cases  arising  from  Continental  cap 
tures.1  A  report  of  a  committee  of  seven 
members,  which  had  been  appointed  on  the 
17th  to  take  Washington's  request  of  No 
vember  8  into  consideration,  was,  on  the 
23rd,  laid  on  the  table  "for  the  perusal  of  the 
members/7  and  was  debated  and  agreed  to 
by  paragraphs  on  the  24th  and  25th.2  Con 
gress  now  took  the  decisive  step  of  author 
izing  the  capture  of  all  British  vessels  em 
ployed  against  the  United  Colonies,  either  as 
armed  vessels  of  war,  transports,  or  supply 
ships.  Provision  for  privateering  was  made 
in  part.  It  was  recommended  to  the  legis 
latures  of  the  several  colonies  to  establish 
courts  for  the  trial  of  prize  cases.  In  all 
cases  appeals  to  Congress  were  to  be  allowed, 
when  made  in  accordance  with  certain  pre 
scribed  rules.  Prosecutions  in  prize  cases 
must  commence  in  the  court  of  that  colony 
in  which  the  capture  was  made,  but  if  the 
capture  took  place  on  the  open  sea  the  cap 
tor  had  the  privilege  of  selecting  the  most 
convenient  court.  Congress  fixed  the  shares 
of  the  proceeds  of  prizes.  In  the  case  of 

1.  Ford,  Writings  of  Washington,  III,  165, 
203-04,    213-14;    Washington    to   President   of 
Congress,   October  5,    November    8,  11,    1775. 
See  Chapter  II,  page  67. 

2.  Journals   of   Continental   Congress,    No 
vember  17,  23,  24,  and  25.      The  Journals  for 
November  25  contain  the  resolutions. 


50     Xary  of  the  American  Revolution 

privateers  the  whole  of  the  proceeds  of 
captures  went  to  the  captors.  In  the  case 
of  vessels  fitted  out  by  a  colony,  or  by  Con 
gress,  two- thirds  were  to  go  in  the  first  in 
stance  to  the  colony,  and  in  the  second,  to 
Congress;  and  one- third  was  to  go  to  the  cap 
tors  :  provided  that,  if  the  prize  should  be  a 
vessel  of  war,  the  captor's  share  should  be 
increased  to  one-half,  and  the  govern 
ment's  share  correspondingly  decreased. 

On  December  2,  1775,  Congress  authorized 
the  Naval  Committee  to  employ  two  addi 
tional  vessels,  and  also  to  "prepare  a  proper 
commission  for  the  captains  or  commanders 
of  the  ships  of  war  in  the  service  of  the 
United  Colonies."1  On  the  report  of  the 
committee  on  recaptures,  Congress  on  De 
cember  5  fixed  the  compensation  of  recap- 
tors,  which  varied  from  one-eighth  to  the 
whole  of  the  value  of  the  vessel  and  cargo, 
depending  on  the  time  which  elapsed  be 
tween  the  capture  and  recapture.2  On  De 
cember  9  the  following  new  naval  offices 
were  established:  midshipman,  armorer, 
sailmaker,  yeoman,  quarter-master,  quarter- 
gunner,  cook,  and  coxswain.3  On  Decem 
ber  13  the  wages  of  able-bodied  seamen 
were  raised  to  $8  a  month;  and  on  the  22nd 

1.  Journals   of    Continental   Congress,    De 
cember  2,  1775. 

2.  Ibid.,  December  5,   1775.      This  legisla 
tion  refers   to   American   vessels   captured  by 
the  British  and  recaptured  by  the  Americans. 

3.  Ibid.,  December  9,  1775. 


Nai'v  of  the  American  Revolution     51 

the  salary  of  the  commandcr-in-chief  of 
the  navy  was  fixed  at  $125  a  month.1 

In  accordance  with  the  direction  of  Con 
gress,  the  Naval  Committee,  on  January  6, 
1776,  reported  on  the  division  of  the  cap 
tor's  share  of  prizes,  among  officers,  seamen, 
and  marines;  whereupon,  Congress  divided 
the  captor's  share  into  twenty  parts,  and  al 
lotted  them  equitably  between  the  officers 
and  men.  The  commander-in-chief  re 
ceived  one-twentieth,  and  the  captains  of 
the  fleet  making  the  capture,  two- twenti 
eths.  After  the  officers  had  been  provided 
for,  the  remaining  eight  and  one-half  parts 
were  allotted  to  the  seamen,  "share  and 
share  alike."2 

Meanwhile,  the  Naval  Committee  had 
been  busy  purchasing,  fitting  for  sea,  and 
officering  a  fleet.  About  the  first  of  Novem 
ber  John  Adams  was  writing  from  Philadel 
phia  to  James  Warren  in  Massachusetts, 
inquiring  whether  naval  vessels  might  be 
purchased  or  built  in  Massachusetts,  and 
whether  suitable  officers  could  be  procured 
there;  and  also  at  the  same  time  to  Samuel 
Chase  in  Baltimore,  in  regard  to  the  pur 
chase  of  certain  vessels  in  that  city.3  On 

1.  Journals    of  Continental   Congress,  De 
cember  13  and  22,  1775. 

2.  Ibid.,  January  6,  1776. 

3.  Manuscript  letters  of  John  Adams,  Mas 
sachusetts  Historical  Society ;  Warren  to  Ad 
ams,    November    14,    1775;    Chase   to   Adams, 
November  16  and  25,  1775. 


52     Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

November  17  the  Committee  ordered  Silas 
Dearie  to  go  to  New  York  and  to  purchase 
a  20-gun  ship  and  a  10-gun  Bermudan-built 
sloop.1  Under  the  authorizations  of  Con 
gress  of  October  13  and  October  30,  the  Na 
val  Committee  purchased  four  vessels,  the 
"Alfred,""  "Columbus,"  "Cabot,"  and  "An 
drew  Doria;"  named,  respectively,  for  the 
founder  of  the  English  navy,  the  discoverer 
of  America,  the  first  English  explorer  of 
America,  and  the  great  Genoese  Admiral.2 
The  first  vessel  to  be  bought  was  the  "Al 
fred,"  a  ship  of  two  hundred  tons  burden. 
The  "Alfred"  was  originally  the  "Black 
Prince,"  and  belonged  to  John  Nixon,  the 
well-known  Philadelphia  merchant  of  Rev 
olutionary  times.3 

On  November  5  the  Naval  Committee  ap 
pointed  Esek  Hopkins,  of  Rhode  Island, 
commander-in-chief  of  the  fleet.4  The  Com 
mittee  may  have  created  this  office  as  anal 
ogous  to  Washington's  position  in  the  army. 
It  is  more  probable  that  the  office  was  bor 
rowed  from  the  British  navy,  in  which  the 

1.  Collections  of  New  York  Historical  So 
ciety,  Deane  Papers,  I,  91-92. 

2.  Works  of  John  Adams,  III,  12. 

3.  M.  I.  J.  Griffin,  Commodore  John  Barry, 
19;  Pennsylvania  Archives,  2nd,  II,  668.      In 
December,  1774,  the  "Black  Prince"  belonged 
to   Thomas    Willing,    Robert    Morris,    Thomas 
Morris,  John  Wharton,  and  John  Nixon. — Pa. 
Magazine  of  Historv  and  Biography,  October, 
1904,  495. 

4.  Edward  Field's    Esek   Hopkins,   78-9. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     53 

commander-in-chief  was  the  chief  admiral 
of  a  port  or  station,  who  held  command  over 
all  other  admirals  within  his  jurisdiction.1 
The  first  and  only  commander-in-chief  of 
the  American  navy  was  at  the  time  of  his  ap 
pointment  fifty-seven  years  of  age.  He  was 
a  member  of  an  influential  Rhode  Island 
family,  and  a  brother  of  Stephen  Hopkins, 
of  the  Naval  Committee.  About  1745  Esek 
Hopkins  was  a  sea  captain  and  merchant  ad 
venturer.  In  the  French  and  Indian  War 
he  had  commanded  a  privateer.2  At  the 
breaking  out  of  the  Revolution  he  received 
the  appointment  of  captain  and  then  of 
brigadier-general  in  the  Rhode  Island  forces. 
Deliberate  in  action  and  irascible  in  temper, 
Hopkins  \vas  at  the  same  time  industrious, 
steadfast,  and  veracious.  The  following 
description  was  written  by  Henry  Knox  to 
his  wife,  probably  in  April,  1776:  "I  have 
been  on  board  Admiral  Hopkins'  ship,  and 
in  company  with  his  gallant  son,  who  was 
wounded  in  the  engagement  with  the  'Glas 
gow.'  The  admiral  is  an  antiquated  figure. 
He  brought  to  my  mind  Van  Tromp,  the 
famous  Dutch  admiral.  Though  antiqua 
ted  in  figure,  he  is  shrewd  and  sensible. 
I,  whom  you  think  not  a  little  enthusiastic, 
should  have  taken  him  for  an  angel,  only 

1.  British  Marine  Encyclopedia,  in  Hogg's 
Naval  Magazine  for  1801. 

2.  Edward   Field,    State   of    Rhode    Island 
and  Providence  Plantations,  II,  422. 


54     A'fli'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

he  swore  now  and  then.''1  The  choice  of 
Hopkins  as  head  of  the  navy  was,  at  the 
time,  as  promising  as  could  have  been  made. 
On  December  7,  1775,  a  commission  was 
given  to  John  Paul  Jones,  an  energetic  and 
capable  young  man,  twenty-eight  years  old, 
whose  brilliant  career  was  still  unforeseen.2 
On  December  22  the  Naval  Committee  laid 
before  Congress  a  "list  of  the  officers  by 
them  appointed/'3  It  included,  besides 
Hopkins  and  Jones,  the  names  of  four  cap 
tains,  four  first-lieutenants,  five  second-lieu 
tenants,  and  three  third-lieutenants.  The 
little  roll  of  captains  was  headed  by  Dudley 
Saltonstall,  who  owed  his  appointment  to 
his  brother-in-law,  Silas  Deane,  a  member 
of  the  Committee;  and  was  ended  by  John 
Burroughs  Hopkins,  a  son  of  the  comman- 
der-in-chief .  Immediately  above  J.  B.  Hop 
kins  in  rank  was  Nicholas  Biddle,  a  young 
Philadelphian,  twenty-five  years  old,  and 
very  promising  material  for  a  naval  officer. 
He  had  entered  the  British  navy  in  1770, 
and  had  served  as  midshipman  on  board  the 
same  vessel  with  Lord  Nelson.  In  the  sum 
mer  of  1775  he  was  appointed  commander 
of  the  "Franklin"  galley  of  the  Pennsyl 
vania  navy.  The  fourth  captain  \vas  Abra- 

1.  Edward     Field's     Esek    Hopkins,     134, 
quotes  from  Drake's  Life  of  Knox. 

2.  Sands,  Life  and  Correspondence  of  John 
Paul  Jones,  32. 

3.  Journals   of    Continental    Congress,    De 
cember  22,  1775. 


A'arv  of  the  American  Revolution     55 

ham  Whipple,  the  commodore  of  the  Rhode 
Island  navy. 

In  these  first  appointments  of  the  Com 
mittee  it  takes  no  eagle  eye  to  discern  the 
workings  of  nepotism  and  sectional  influ 
ences.  Of  the  five  largest  naval  plums, 
New  England  plucked  four.  This  may  have 
been,  however,  right  enough,  as  the  South 
was  credited  with  the  commander-in-chief 
of  the  army,  and  New  England  greatly  ex 
ceeded  the  Middle  and  Southern  states  in 
the  number  of  men  who  were  experienced 
in  maritime  affairs. 

In  December,  1775,  the  Naval  Committee 
was  preparing  a  fleet  for  sea,  which  was  to 
make  the  first  naval  essay  of  the  new  govern 
ment.  The  Pennsylvania  Committee  of 
Safety  was  contributing  arms,  ammunition, 
and  sailors.  Commodore  Hopkins  enlisted 
for  the  service  of  his  fleet  more»than  one  hun 
dred  seamen  in  Rhode  Island,  whom  Whip- 
pie  brought  to  Philadelphia  in  the  "Katy." 
On  December  3,  1775,  John  Paul  Jones 
hoisted  the  Continental  flag  on  board  the 
"Alfred,"  Hopkins's  flagship,  the  first  Conti 
nental  vessel  to  fly  the  colors  of  the  new  na 
tion.1  By  the  end  of  January,  1776,  the 
Committee  had  added  four  other  small  ves 
sels  to  the  navy,  the  sloops  "Providence," 
and  "Hornet,"  and  the  schooners,  "Wasp," 


1.  Force,  American  Archives,  4th,  IV,  360; 
letter  to  Earl  of  Dartmouth,  dated  Maryland, 
Dec.  20,  1775. 


56     A^az'v  of  tlie  American  Revolution 

and  "Fly."1  The  "Providence"  had  been 
the  "Katy"  of  the  Rhode  Island  navy.  The 
"Hornet"  and  the  "Wasp"  were  obtained  in 
Baltimore. 

On  January  5,  1776,  the  Naval  Committee 
issued  sailing  orders  to  the  commander-in- 
chicf.  He  was  ordered ,  "if  Winds  and 
Weather  possibly  admit  of  it,  to  proceed  di 
rectly  for  Chesapeake  Bay  in  Virginia." 
Here  he  was  to  strike  the  enemy's  fleet 
under  Lord  Dunmore,  unless  it  was  found 
to  be  greatly  superior  to  his  own.  If  he  was 
so  fortunate  as  to  execute  this  business  suc 
cessfully,  he  was  to  continue  southward  and 
master  the  British  forces  off  the  coast  of  the 
Carolinas,  and  from  thence  he  was  to  sail 
northward  directly  to  Rhode  Island  and  "at 
tack,  take,  and  destroy  all  the  enemy's  na 
val  force  that  you  may  find  there."2  This 
program  seems  rather  ambitious,  when  one 
considers  the  motley  assemblage  of  officers, 
seamen,  and  cruisers,  that  composed  this 
fleet  of  made-over  merchantmen. 

The  ice  in  the  Delaware  greatly  delayed 
the  expedition.  Early  in  February,  1776, 


1.  Journals   of   Continental   Congress,    De 
cember  2,  1775,  January  9  and  16,  1776.     The 
Naval  Committee  spent  $134,333  on  the  eight 
vessels    which    they    fitted    out. — Journals    of 
Continental  Congress,  September  19,  1776. 

2.  Records     and     Papers     of    Continental 
Congress,    78,  III,  239-40,  orders  of  Commo 
dore  Hopkins,  signed  by  four  members  of  the 
Naval  Committee. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     57 

the  fleet  was  assembling  at  Cape  Henlopen. 
It  then  consisted-of  the  flagship  "Alfred," 
24,  Captain  Dudley  Saltonstall;  the  ship 
"  Columbus,"  20,  Captain  Abraham  Whipple; 
the  brigs  "Andrew  Doria,"  14,  Captain  Nich 
olas  Biddle,  and  "Cabot,"  14,  Captain  J.  B. 
Hopkins;  the  sloop  "Providence,"  12;  and 
the  schooner  "Fly,"  8.  On  February  15 
the  sloop  "Hornet,"  10,  and  the  schooner 
"Wasp,"  8,  joined  the  fleet  from  Balti 
more.1  On  the  17th  the  fleet  sailed  outside 
the  Capes  into  the  broad  Atlantic.  A  new 
nation  in  whose  veins  flowed  the  blood  of  a 
long  line  of  seafaring  and  sea-fighting  an 
cestors  was  about  to  put  to  the  initial  test 
its  skill  in  naval  warfare,  and  under  condi 
tions  far  from  auspicious.  If  the  doughty 
Admiral  should  get  all  his  queer  craft  once 
more  into  a  safe  harbor  he  would  be  doing 
well. 

Hopkins  had  apparently  concluded  that 
his  Armada  might  prove  vincible  on  the 
stormy  coasts  of  Virginia.  Indeed,  the 
enemy  must  have  heard  of  his  intended 
coming,  and  awaited  it.  Not  only  discre 
tion,  but  good  military  judgment  advised 
him  to  abandon  for  the  present  the  visitation 
to  the  Chesapeake.2  Before  sailing  on  Feb- 

1.  Force,  American  Archives,  4th,  V,  823. 

2.  Ford,     Writings     of     Washington,     III, 
299-300,  319.     Washington  wrote  on  January 
4,   1776,  to  Joseph  Reed:     "I  fear  your  fleet 
has  been  so  long  in  fitting,  and  the  destination 
of  it  so  well  known,  that  the  end  will  be  de- 


58     Xavy  of  the  American  Revolution 

ruary  17  he  had  determined  to  make  a  de 
scent  on  Nassau,  New  Providence,  and  ac 
cordingly  he  gave  orders  to  his  captains 
and  commanders  to  keep  in  company,  if 
possible,  but  if  not,  to  make  for  the  island 
of  Abaco,  one  of  the  Bahamas,  where  the 
fleet  would  next  rendezvous.1 

On  the  3rd  and  4th  of  March  Nassau  was 
taken  after  a  slight  resistance  and  without 
bloodshed,  by  a  landing  party  consisting  of 
two  hundred  marines  under  one  of  their 
officers,  Captain  Samuel  Nichols,  and  fifty 
sailors  under  Lieutenant  Weaver  of  the 
"  Cabot."  Eighty-eight  cannon,  fifteen  mor 
tars,  a  large  quantity  of  shot  and  shell  be 
sides  other  munitions  of  war  were  captured. 
Since  the  governor  of  the  island  succeeded 
the  night  before  the  landing  was  effected  in 
removing  the  gunpowder  to  a  safe  hiding 
place,  the  expedition  failed  of  its  chief  ob 
ject.2 

On  March  17,  having  loaded  his  vessels 
and  a  borrowed  sloop  writh  the  warlike 
stores,  Hopkins  set  sail  for  Rhode  Island, 

feated,  if  the  vessels  escape."  In  July,  1776, 
Dunmore's  fleet  consisted  of  more  than  forty 
vessels,  most  of  which,  however,  were  prob 
ably  unarmed,  being  occupied  by  refugee 
Tories. — Maryland  Archives,  XII,  24-25. 

1.  Edward  Field's  Esek  Hopkins,  101 ;  a  copy 
of  Hopkins 's  orders  is  given. 

2.  Papers  of  Esek  Hopkins,  Rhode  Island 
Historical  Society,  an  invoice  of  captured  ar 
ticles. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     59 

taking  with  him  as  prisoners  of  war  several 
important  officials,  including  the  Governor 
and  Lieutenant-Governor  of  New  Provi 
dence.  On  April  4  the  squadron,  having 
reached  the  eastward  end  of  Long  Island, 
captured  the  British  schooner  "Hawk,"  6, 
and  the  bomb  brig  "Bolton,"  8.  At  1 
o'clock  on  the  morning  of  the  6th  the 
"Alfred,"  "Cabot,"  "Columbus,"  "Andrew. 
Doria/'  and  "  Providence "  engaged  His 
""Majesty's  ship  "Glasgow,"  20,  Captain  Ty- 
ringham  Howe.  After  a  severe  fight  of 
about  three  hours,  the  "Glasgow,"  was  per 
mitted  to  escape,  leaving  her  tender  with 
the  Americans.1  The  loss  of  the  enemy  was 
four;  that  of  the  Americans,  twenty-four, 
of  which  number  twenty-three  were  on 
board  the  "Alfred"  and  "Cabot,"  the  two 
vessels  which  bore  the  brunt  of  the  en 
counter.2  Each  of  these  vessels  had  a  lieu 
tenant  killed. 

The  American  commanders  in  this  en 
gagement  exhibited  little  skill  in  tactics. 
A  fleet  permitted  a  single  vessel  of  the  ene 
my  to  escape.  Something  can  be  said  for 
them  by  way  of  extenuating  circumstances. 
It  should  also  be  said  that  they  showed  no 
lack  of  spirit.  As  was  natural,  Commodore 

1.  Force,  American  Archives,  4th,  V,  823, 
Hopkins    to     President     of     Congress,     April, 
1776,  giving  an  account  of  the  expedition. 

2.  W.    L.    Clowes,    Royal   Navy,   IV,   3,   4; 
Connecticut  Gazette,  April  12,  1776. 


Co     Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

Hopkins  was  made  the  target  for  much  ad 
verse  criticism.  Nations,  it  is  said,  are  sel 
dom  just  under  disgrace,  imaginary  or  real. 
The  expedition  to  New  Providence  was 
the  sole  naval  enterprise  made  by  the  Con 
tinental  vessels,  while  they  were  under  the 
direction  of  the  Naval  Committee.  Early 
in  1776  this  Committee,  reduced  in  mem 
bership,  yielded  its  control  of  marine  affairs 
to  a  new  committee  with  a  fuller  comple 
ment  of  members.  It  scarcely  needs  to  be 
said  that  the  Naval  Committee's  claim  to 
distinction  rests  not  upon  its  military 
achievements,  but  upon  its  work  of  a  civil 
character,  whereby  it  laid  the  foundations 
of  the  Revolutionary  navy.  It  acquired 
the  first  American  fleet,  selected  its  officers, 
and  fitted  it  for  sea.  It  drafted  the  first 
civil  and  penal  code  of  the  navy,  and  pre 
pared  not  a  little  fundamental  naval  legis 
lation. 


CHAPTER  II 


THE      FLEETS      OF       WASHINGTON      AND 
ARNOLD1 


The  first  armed  vessels  that  sailed  under 
Continental  pay  and  control  were  those 
that  composed  the  little  fleet  fitted  out  by 
Washington  in  the  ports  of  Massachusetts 
in  the  fall  of  1775.  As  these  vessels  were 
manned  by  soldiers'  and  were  commanded 
by  army  officers,  and  were  designed  to 
weaken  the  army  of  the  enemy  by  captur 
ing  his  transports  carrying  supplies  and 
troops,  Washington  was  able  to  derive  his 
authority  for  procuring  and  fitting  out  the 
fleet  from  his  commission  as  commander-in- 
chief  of  the  Continental  army.  The  first 
vessel  employed  in  this  service  was  the 
schooner  "Hannah/1  commanded  by  Nich 
olson  Broughton,  a  captain  in  the  army. 
According  to  his  instructions,  issued  Sep 
tember  2,  1775,  and  signed  by  Washington, 

1.  This  chapter,  which  is  presented  here 
for  chronological  reasons,  is  not  closely  related 
to  the  main  narrative,  which  will  be  resumed 
at  the  beginning  of  Chapter  III. 


62     Nary  of  tlie  American  Revolution 

Broughton  was  directed  to  proceed  "  im 
mediately  on  a  cruise  against  such 
vessels  as  may  be  found  on  the  high 
seas,  or  elsewhere,  bound  inwards  and 
outwards,  to  or  from  Boston,  in  the 
service  of  the  Ministerial  Army,  and  to  take 
and  seize  all  such  vessels,  laden  with  soldiers, 
arms,  ammunition,  or  provisions,  for  or 
from  said  Army,  or  which  you  shall  have 
good  reason  to  suspect  are  in  such  service." 
One-third  of  all  captured  cargoes  were  to 
be  given  to  officers  and  crews  as  an  en 
couragement.  The  proportions  according 
to  which  the  captors'  share  was  to  be  di 
vided  were  fixed.  The  captain  was  to  re 
ceive  six  times  as  much  as  a  private.  Prizes 
were  to  be  sent  to  the  "safest  and  nearest 
port  to  this  camp."  Prisoners  were  to  be 
treated  with  kindness  and  humanity. 
Broughton  was  directed  to  be  exceedingly 
careful  and  frugal  with  his  ammunition,  and 
not  to  waste  it  in  salutes.1 

Not  until  a  month  after  the  fitting  out  of 
the  "Hannah"  did  Washington  begin  to 
add  to  his  naval  force.  On  October  4  he 
appointed  Colonel  John  Glover  and  Stephen 
Moylan  agents  to  equip  two  vessels  at 
Salem,  Marblehead,  or  Newburyport,  and 
they  were  directed  to  name  suitable  men 
for  prize  agents  in  the  leading  ports  of  Mas- 


1.      Force,  American  Archives,  4th,  III,  633- 
34,  Instructions  to  Broughton. 


ATary  of  the  American  Revolution     63 

sachusetts.1  When  Washington  received 
the  letter  of  Congress  of  October  5  directing 
him  to  obtain  two  vessels  from  Massachu 
setts  and  to  send  them  to  the  St.  Lawrence 
river  to  intercept  two  British  transports 
bound  from  London  for  Quebec,  he  ordered 
on  this  service,  since  Massachusetts  at  this 
time  had  no  armed  vessels,  the  schooners 
"Lynch,"  Captain  Nicholson  Broughton, 
and  "  Franklin,"  Captain  John  Selman, 
which  had  been  or  were  being  fitted  out  by 
Glover  and  Moylan.2  In  October  and  No 
vember  four  other  small  vessels,  the  schoon 
ers  "Lee,"  "Harrison,"  and  "Warren," 
and  the  brigantine  "Washington"  were 
fitted  out  and  sent  cruising  against  the 
enemy's  transports.  About  the  first  of 
January,  1776,  the  schooner  "Hancock" 
was  added.  Washington  had  the  entire 
management  of  his  fleet.  Stephen  Moylan, 
who  was  attached  to  his  staff,  conducted 
most  of  the  correspondence  with  the  cap 
tains  and  naval  agents  while  Washington 
was  at  Cambridge.3  Agents  for  fitting  out 
the  fleet  and  receiving  its  prizes  were  es 
tablished  in  Plymouth,  Boston,  Lynn, 
Salem,  Marblehead,  Beverly,  Newburyport, 

1.  Force,  American  Archives,  4th,  III,  946. 

2.  See  Chapter  I, The  Naval  Committee, page 
37;  Ford,  Writings  of  Washington,  III,  174-5. 

3.  Moylan    had   been   for   some   months   a 
member    of    Washington's    official    household 
before    he    was    appointed    aide-de-camp    in 
March,  1776. 


64     A'ai'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

and  Portsmouth,  X.  H.  In  January,  1776, 
Washington  appointed  John  Manly  commo 
dore  of  the  fleet.  The  other  commanders 
thereby  became  subject  to  Manly's  orders. 
With  the  exception  of  Manly,  Washington 
had  a  poor  opinion  of  the  abilities  of  his 
commanders.  On  January  28  lie  wrote  to 
Manly:  "I  wish  you  could  inspire  the  cap 
tains  of  the  other  armed  schooners  under 
your  command  with  some  of  your  activity 
and  industry."1  In  November,  1775,  he 
had  written:  "Our  rascally  privateersmen 
go  on  at  the  old  rate,  mutinying  if  they  can 
not  do  as  they  please.  Those  at  Plymouth, 
Beverly,  and  Portsmouth  have  done  noth 
ing  worth  mentioning  in  the  prize  way,  and 
no  account  as  yet  received  from  those  far 
ther  eastward,"  referring  to  the  "Lynch" 
and  "Franklin,"  whose  commanders  he 
feared  "would  not  effect  any  good  pur 
pose/'2  Early  in  December  Washington 
was  still  more  emphatic:  "The  plague, 
trouble,  and  vexation  I  have  had  with  the 
crews  of  all  the  armed  vessels,  are  inex 
pressible.  I  do  believe  there  is  not  on 
earth  a  more  disorderly  set.  Every  time 
they  come  into  port,  we  hear  of  nothing  but 
mutinous  complaints.  Manly's  success  has 
lately,  and  but  lately,  quieted  his  people. 


1.  Ford,   Writings  of  Washington ,-iiI,  382- 
83. 

2.  Ibid.,    231-32,    Washington    to    Joseph 
Reed,  November  20,  1775. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     65 

The  crews  of  the  Washington  and  Harrison 
have  actually  deserted  them;  so  that  I 
have  been  under  the  necessity  of  ordering 
the  agent  to  lay  the  latter  up,  and  get  hands 
for  the  other  on  the  best  terms  he  could."1 
Notwithstanding  the  Commander-in- 
chief's  unfavorable  judgment,  it  must  be 
said  that  his  fleet,  upon  the  whole,  was 
quite  as  successful  as  were  other  fleets  of 
equal  size  and  force  during  the  Revolution. 
The  vessels  which  composed  it  were  small 
and  lightly  armed.  Manly's  first  vessel, 
the  "Lee,"  with  which  he  rendered  effec 
tive  service,  carried  fifty  men  and  four 
4-pounders.  The  brigantine  "  Washington  " 
was  somewhat  larger,  mounting  ten  guns. 
Altogether  the  fleet  captured  some  thirty- 
five  prizes.2  The  first  important  capture, 
that  of  the  brigantine  "Nancy,"  was  an  ex 
ceedingly  timely  one,  and  was  made  by 
Manly  in  the  "Lee"  on  one  of  the  last 
days  of  November,  1775.  Among  other 
stores  the  ."Nancy"  had  on  board  2,000 
muskets,  100,000  flints,  30,000  round  shot, 
more  than  30  tons  of  musket  shot,  11 
mortar  beds,  and  a  brass  mortar  weighing 
10,000  pounds.  It  would  have  taken  the 

1.  Ford,  Writings  of  Washington,  III,  261- 
62,  Washington  to  President  of  Congress,  De 
cember  4,  1775. 

2.  This   calculation   is   made   chiefly   from 
accounts  of  the  vessels  found  in  Force's  Ameri 
can   Archives  and   Ford's   Writings  of   Wash 
ington. 


66     Aravy  of  the  American  Revolution 

Americans  eighteen  months  to  have  manu 
factured  a  like  quantity  of  ordnance.1  In 
June,  1776,  the  fleet,  together  with  the 
"  Defence"  of  the  Connecticut  navy,  captured 
four  British  transports,  which  had  on  board 
besides  a  quantity  of  supplies  upwards  of 
three  hundred  and  twenty  Scottish  troops.2 
Washington's  fleet  cruised  chiefly  off  the 
Massachusetts  coast.  Broughton  and  Sel- 
man,  whom  Washington  dispatched  to  the 
river  St.  Lawrence  to  intercept  the  two 
British  transports,  did  not  enter  the  river 
at  all.  After  making  several  unauthorized 
captures,  they  turned  their  attention  to  the 
island  of  St.  Johns,  now  Prince  Edward 
island.  Here  they  pillaged  the  defence 
less  inhabitants,  and  robbed  the  houses  of 
the  Governor  and  Acting-Governor  of  plate, 
carpets,  curtains,  mirrors,  table  linen,  and 
wearing  apparel.  They  made  prisoners  of 
the  Acting-Governor  and  two  other  leading 
men  of  the  island,  whose  families  were  left 
in  great  distress.  Washington  was  highly 
indignant  at  these  unwarranted  acts  of  his 
captains,  and  at  once  on  their  arrival  in 
Massachusetts  he  released  their  three  pris 
oners.3 


1.  Ford,  Writings  of  Washington,   III,  252 
and  note;  Letters  of  John  Adams,  Massachu 
setts    Historical    Society,    William    Tudor    to 
John  Adams,  December  3,  1775. 

2.  Boston  Gazette,  July  6,  1776. 

3.  Force,  American  Archives,  4th,  IV,  451- 
52,  Memorial  of  Philip  Callbeck  and  Thomas 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     67 

Moved  by  the  need  for  a  proper  judicial 
tribunal  to  try  the  prize  cases  arising  from 
captures  made  by  his  vessels,  Washington 
on  November  11,  1775,  wrote  to  Congress 
on  the  subject.  He  enclosed  in  his  letter 
a  copy  of  the  Massachusetts  law  establish 
ing  admiralty  courts,  and  explained  that 
this  law  did  not  apply  to  the  captures  made 
by  Continental  vessels.  "  Should  not  a 
court/'  he  asked,  "be  established  by  au 
thority  of  Congress,  to  take  cognizance  of 
prizes  made  by  the  Continental  vessels? 
Whatever  the  mode  is,  which  they  are 
pleased  to  adopt,  there  is  an  absolute  ne 
cessity  of  its  being  speedily  determined  on, 
for  I  can  not  spare  time  from  military 
affairs  to  give  proper  attention  to  these 
matters."  As  early  as  October  5  Washing 
ton  had  requested  the  "determination  of 
Congress,  as  to  the  property  and  disposal 
of  such  vessels  and  cargoes,  as  are  designed 
for  the  supply  of  the  enemy,  and  may  fall 
into  our  hands."  On  November  8  he  called 
the  attention  of  Congress  to  the  same  sub 
ject.  On  December  4  and  December  14  he 
again  urged  Congress  to  establish  a  Conti- 
Wright;  Ford,  Writings  of  Washington,  III, 
175  and  note,  261-62  and  note.  H.  E.  Waite, 
Origin  of  American  Navy,  26-28.  Report  on 
Canadian  Archives,  1895,  Prince  Edward 
Island,  15-16.  The  number  of  vessels  cap 
tured  by  Broughton  and  Selman  on  this  cruise 
has  been  given  by  Elbridge  Gerry  as  ten  and 
by  Selman  as  seven.  Both  figures  are  prob 
ably  too  high. 


68     Araz'T  of  the  American  Revolution 

nental  prize  court.1  Finally,  on  December 
20  Congress  resolved  that  the  several  ves 
sels  heretofore  carried  into  Massachusetts 
by  the  armed  vessels  in  the  service  of  the 
United  Colonies  should  be  "proceeded 
against  by  the  rules  of  the  law  of  nations, 
and  libelled  in  the  courts  of  admiralty 
erected  in  said  colony."2  The  method  of 
procedure  which  Congress  here  established 
was  followed  throughout  the  Revolution 
in  all  prize  cases  arising  from  captures  made 
by  Continental  vessels.  Congress  permitted 
the  states  to  exercise  original  jurisdiction 
in  all  Continental  prize  cases,  and  reserved 
to  itself  appellate  jurisdiction,  so  far  as  it 
had  power  to  do  so. 

It  is  recalled  that  Congress,  on  November 
25,  1775,  having  under  consideration  the 
report  of  a  committee  on  Washington's  letter 
of  November  8,  determined  the  kinds  of 
British  property  which  should  be  subject  to 
capture,  fixed  the  shares  of  prizes,  and  estab 
lished  certain  forms  of  procedure  in  the  trial 
of  prize  cases.3  The  lack  of  correspondence 

1.  Ford,  Writings  of  Washington,  III,  165, 
203-04,  213-214,  251-58,  274. 

2.  Journals   of   Continental   Congress,    De 
cember  20,  1775. 

3.  See  Chapter    I,  The  Naval  Committee, 
page  48.      It  would  seem  that  Congress,  by  its 
resolutions  of  November  25,   intended  to  give 
colonial  courts   original    jurisdiction  in  Conti 
nental    prize    cases.      Washington    did   not   so 
understand  these  resolutions.      See   his    letter 


Nai'y  of  the  American  Revolution     69 

between  these  resolutions  and  the  Massa 
chusetts  law  of  November  1,  establishing  ad 
miralty  courts,  caused  long  and  serious  de 
lays  in  bringing  the  Continental  prizes  to 
trial.  Washington,  on  April  25,  1776,  wrote 
from  New  York:  "I  have  not  yet  heard, 
that  there  has  been  any  trial  of  the  prizes 
carried  into  Massachusetts  Bay.  This  pro 
crastination  is  attended  with  very  bad  con 
sequences.  Some  of  the  vessels  I  had  fitted 
out  are  now  laid  up,  the  crews  being  dissat 
isfied  that  they  cannot  get  their  prize  money. 
I  have  tired  the  Congress  on  this  subject, 
but  the  importance  of  it  makes  me  again 
mention,  that,  if  a  summary  way  of  proceed 
ing  is  not  resolved  on,  it  will  be  impossible 
to  get  our  vessels  manned."1 

On  the  evacuation  of  Boston  by  the  Brit 
ish  in  March,  1776,  Washington  soon  re 
moved  his  headquarters  to  New  York.,  He 
left  his  fleet  in  charge  of  General  Artemas 
Ward,  who  reported  its  movements  to  him. 
In  February,  1777,  the  Marine  Committee 
of  Congress  ordered  the  Continental  agent 
at  Boston  to  pay  off  and  discharge  the  fleet.2 
of  December  14,  1775,  to  the  President  of  Con 
gress,  and  his  letter  of  December  26,  1775,  to 
R.  H.  Lee. 

1.  Ford,  Writings  of  Washington,  III,  404; 
IV,  44,  45. 

2.  Marine  Committee  Letter  Book,  Robert 
Morris,    Vice-President    of    the    Marine    Com 
mittee,   to  John   Bradford,   Continental  agent 
at    Boston,    February    7,    1777.     The    "Lee," 
Captain  Skimmer,  was  still  in  the  Continental 


70    Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

In  March  the  Marine  Committee  appointed 
three  commissioners  to  settle  the  accounts 
of  Washington's  prize  agents.1  These  com 
missioners  had  not  completed  their  task  in 
April,  1778.2 

In  April,  1776,  immediately  upon  Wash 
ington's  arrival  in  New  York,  he  began  to 
equip  a  fleet  similar  to  the  one  at  Boston. 
He  requested  from  the  New  York  Committee 
of  Safety  the  loan  of  their  state  vessels, 
which  he  wished  to  use  in  suppressing  illicit 
trade  with  the  enemy.  Some  disagreement 
arose  as  to  the  terms  of  the  loan.  Washing 
ton  insisted  that  if  he  manned  the  "General 
Schuyler,"  he  would  expect  to  appoint  her 
officers.  In  the  end,  the  "General  Schuy- 
ler"  was  turned  over  to  Washington,  and 
the  captain  of  the  "General  Putnam"  was 
directed  to  obey  his  orders.3  Washington 
now  obtained  from  other  sources  the  sloop 
"General  Mifflin."  These  vessels,  which 
cruised  during  the  summer  of  1776  chiefly  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Long  Island,  and  usu- 

service  in  November,  1777,  when  the  Navy 
Board  was  ordered  to  discharge  Skimmer,  and 
to  take  the  "Lee"  into  the  regular  Conti 
nental  navy,  if  she  was  adapted  for  it. — Marine 
Committee  Letter  Book,  Committee  to  Navy 
Board  at  Boston,  November  22,  1777. 

1.  Marine  Committee  Letter  Book,  Commit 
tee  to  the  three  Commissioners,  March  21,  1777. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  April 
9,  1778. 

3.  Journals    of    New    York    Committee    of 
Safety,  April  24,  May  10,  1776. 


A'arv  of  the  American  Revolution     71 

ally  with  the  Xew  York  state  sloop  "Mont 
gomery,"  captured  several  British  vessels.1 
In  the  summer  of  1776  Washington  was  con 
structing  some  "gondolas/'  row-galleys,  and 
fire-ships,  for  the  defence  of  the  Hudson. 
The  galley  "Lady  Washington/7  which  was 
manned  and  completed  by  the  summer  of 
1776,  was  still  in  service  on  the  Hudson  in 
June,  1777.2 

In  the  significance  of  their  results  the  ope 
rations  of  no  other  naval  armament  of  the 
Americans  during  the  Revolution  compare 
with  those  of  Arnold's  fleet  on  Lake  Cham- 
plain  in  the  fall  of  1776.  On  May  31,  1775, 
the  Continental  Congress  desired  the  New 
York  Provincial  Congress  "to  take  effectual 
care  that  a  sufficient  number  of  batteaus  be 
immediately  provided  for  the  lakes."3  Ma- 
jor-General  Schuyler  commanded  the  Conti 
nental  forces  in  this  region,  including  the 
naval  armaments  upon  the  Lakes.  These 
last,  in  September,  consisted  of  a  sloop,  a 
schooner,  two  row-galleys,  and  ten  "bat- 


1.  The  movements  of  these  vessels  may  be 
followed  in  Force's  American  Archives,  Ford's 
Writings  of  Washington,  and  the  Journals  of 
the  New  York  Provincial  Congress  and  Com 
mittee  of  Safety. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,   May 

30,  1776;   Force,   American   Archives,    5th,    I, 
1263;  Journals  of  New  York  Provincial  Con 
gress,  June  7,  1777. 

3.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,   May 

31,  1775. 


72     A'arv  of  the  American  Revolution 

teaus."1  About  the  first  of  August  the  New 
York  provincial  Congress  sent  James  Smith 
to  Schuyler  to  take  command  of  the  sloop 
"Enterprise."2  Smith  either  received  or 
gave  to  himself  the  title  of  "Commodore  on 
the  Lakes."  He  did  not  long  hold  this  title; 
for  in  March,  1776,  the  Continental  Congress 
appointed  Major  William  Douglass  of  New 
York,  "Commodore  on  the  Lakes."  a  place 
for  which  General  Schuyler  had  recommen 
ded  Captain  Jacobus  Wynkoop,  of  the  same 
state.3  In  April  Wynkoop  was  enlisting 
seamen  in  New  York  City.4  In  May,  since 
Douglass  did  not  enter  upon  his  appoint 
ment,  Schuyler,  acting  under  the  orders  of 
Congress,  put  the  armed  vessels  under  the 
command  of  Wynkoop.5 

About  the  first  of  July,  1776,  the  Ameri 
can  forces  were  driven  out  of  Canada.  They 
retreated  southward  as  far  as  the  forts  on 
the  Lakes.  The  holding  of  Lakes  Cham- 
plain  and  George,  which  were  a  strategic 
part  of  the  line  of  communication  between 
Canada  and  the  Hudson,  now  became  a  mat- 

1.  Force,  American  Archives,  4th,  III,  738. 

2.  Ibid.,  11,  14. 

3.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  March 
26,  1776;  Journals  of  New  York  Committee  of 
Safety,  March  18,  1776. 

4.  Journals    of    New    York    Committee    of 
Safety,  April  24,  1776. 

5.  Force,  American  Archives,  5th,  I,  1186, 
1277;  Journals   of  New  York  Provincial  Con 
gress,  March  16,  1776;  Journals  of  Continental 
Congress,  May  2,  1776. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     73 

ter  of  vital  importance.  Providing  against 
a  possible  failure  in  Canada,  Congress,  Wash 
ington,  and  Schuylcr  had,  in  May  and  early 
June,  been  increasing  the  effectiveness  of 
the  naval  armament  on  the  Lakes.  On 
June  17  Congress  ordered  Schuyler  to  build 
"with  all  expedition,  as  many  galleys  and 
armed  vessels  as,  in  the  opinion  of  himself 
and  the  general  officer  to  be  sent  into  Can 
ada,  shall  be  sufficient  to  majce  us  indis 
putable  masters  of  the  lakes  Champlain  and 
George."  A  master  carpenter,  acquainted 
with  the  construction  of  the  galleys  used  on 
the  Delaware,  other  carpenters,  and  models 
of  galleys,  if  required,  were  to  be  sent  on 
from  Philadelphia.1 

Towards  the  end  of  June,  Brigadier-Gen 
eral  Benedict  Arnold,  recognizing  the  su 
preme  importance  of  maintaining  a  naval 
superiority  on  the  Lakes,  began  to  exert  an 
influence  in  naval  affairs.  Arnold  was  not 
without  marine  experience;  as  a  resident  of 
New  Haven,  engaged  in  the  West  India 
trade,  he  had  sometimes  commanded  his 
own  ships.  On  June  25,  1776,  he  wrote  to 
Washington:  "It  now  appears  to  me  of 
the  utmost  importance  that  the  Lakes  be 
immediately  secured  by  a  large  number  (at 
least  twenty  or  thirty)  of  gondolas,  row- 
galleys,  and  floating  batteries I  think 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  May 
22,  May  25,  June  17,  1776;  Ford,  Writings  of 
Washington,  IV,  101. 


74     Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

it  absolutely  necessary  that  three  hundred 
carpenters  be  immediately  employed."1  To 
wards  the  end  of  July,  General  Gates  ap 
pointed  Arnold  to  command  the  naval 
forces  on  the  Lakes.  Wynkoop,  who  held 
a  similar  command  by  virtue  of  an  appoint 
ment  from  Congress  and  Schuyler,  refused 
to  yield  to  Arnold.  He  was  thereupon 
arrested  by  Gates  and  sent  as  a  prisoner  to 
Schuyler.2  ^ 

During  July  and  August,  1776,  Skenes- 
borough,  at  the  head  of  Lake  Champlain, 
was  the  scene  of  the  greatest  naval  activity. 
Requisitions  were  made  upon  Pennsyl 
vania,  New  York,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Isl 
and,  and  Massachusetts  for  carpenters-. 
Naval  stores  and  munitions  of  war  of  all 
sorts,  sail-cloth,  cordage,  anchors,  cannon, 
and  ammunition  were  sent  to  the  Lakes 
from  the  seaboard,  especially  from  New  York 
and  Connecticut.  Seamen  were  hurried  for 
ward.  On  August  13  the  Governor  and 
Council  of  Safety  of  Connecticut  voted  £180 
to  Captain  Seth  Warner  of  Saybrook  to  en 
able  him  to  raise  a  crew  of  forty  seamen  for 
the  naval  service  on  the  Lakes.  These  men 
were  "to  receive  a  bounty  of  £6  for  inlist- 
ing;  and  for  finding  themselves  blankets, 
12s;  guns,  6s;  and  cartouch-box  and  belt 
and  knapsack,  2s;  and  one  month's  wages 

1.  Force,  American  Archives,  4th,  VI,  1 107- 
08. 

2.  Ibid.,  5th,  I,  1186-87. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     75 

being  48s  advanced,  according  to  procla 
mation/'  On  August  16  the  Governor  and 
Council  of  Safety  authorized  two  other  com 
panies  to  be  raised.1  In  September  Gates 
understood  that  two  hundred  seamen  had 
been  enlisted  in  New  York  city.2 

On  July  24,  1776,  Arnold  wrote  from 
Skenesborough  to  Gates:  "I  arrived  here 
last  evening,  and  found  three  gondolas  on 
the  stocks;  two  will  be  completed  in  five  or 
six  days,  the  row  galley  in  eight  or  ten  days. 
Three  other  gondolas  will  be  set  up  immedi 
ately,  and  may  be  completed  in  ten  days. 
A  company  of  twenty-seven  carpenters  from 
Middletown  are  cutting  timber  for  a  row- 
galley,  on  the  Spanish  construction,  to 
mount  six  heavy  pieces  of  cannon.  One 
hundred  carpenters  from  Pennsylvania  and 
Massachusetts  will  be  here  this  evening.  I 
shall  employ  them  on  another  row-galley. 
In  two  or  three  \veeks,  I  think  we  shall  have 
a  formidable  fleet.  No  canvass  or  cordage 
is  yet  arrived,  though  much  wanted."3 
Through  strenuous  exertions  the  American 
fleet  on  the  Lakes  was  greatly  increased  and 
strengthened.  By  October  it  consisted  of 
one  sloop,  three  schooners,  eight  "gondolas," 

1.  Colonial    Records    of   Connecticut,  XV, 
500,  503.      The  rolls  of  these  three  Connecticut 
companies,  containing  eighty-five  names,  will 
be  found  in  the  Connecticut  Historical  Society 
Collections,  VIII,  235-37. 

2.  Force,  American  Archives,  5th,  II,   186. 

3.  Ibid.,  I,  563. 


76     Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

and  four  galleys,  mounting  a  total  of  94  can 
non,  2-pouriders  to  18-pounders.  With  a 
full  complement,  the  fleet  would  have  car 
ried  856  men.  It  probably  numbered  about 
700  officers  and  men,  such  as  they  were.1 
Arnold  said  that  he  had  a  "wretched  motley 
crew  in  the  fleet;  the  marines  the  refuse  of 
every  regiment,  and  the  seamen  few  of 
them  ever  wet  with  salt  water."  Many 
of  his  seamen  and  marines  were  almost 
naked.2 

During  the  first  days  of  October  the  naval 
superiority  on  the  Lakes  shifted  to  the  Brit 
ish.  General  Sir  Guy  Carleton,  the  British 
commander,  drawing  upon  superior  naval 
resources,  had  outbuilt  Arnold.  Early  in 
October  Carleton's  fleet  consisted  of  one 
ship,  two  schooners,  one  "radeau,"  one 
large  "gondola,"  twenty  gunboats,  and  four 
armed  tenders.  Some  of  these  vessels  and 
the  material  for  others  he  had  brought  from 
the  St.  Lawrence  up  the  Richelieu.  The 
ship  "Enterprise,"  eighteen  12-pounders, 
180  tons  burden,  whose  construction  had 
been  begun  at  Quebec,  he  thus  transported 
in  pieces.  She  was  set  up  at  St.  Johns,  on 
the  Richelieu,  where  the  British  shipyard 
was  situated.  This  vessel  in  size  and  arma- 
ment  greatly  exceeding  any  one  craft  of  the 

1.  Force,  American  Archives,  5th,  11,1039. 
One  galley  which  was  fitting  at  Ticonderoga  is 
net    included    in    the    above    list.      The  exact 
number  of  men  in  Arnold's  fleet  is  uncertain. 

2.  Ibid.,  481,  834. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     77 

Americans.  A  fleet  of  transports  and  ships 
of  war  in  the  St.  Lawrence  furnished  Carle- 
ton  with  seven  hundred  experienced  officers 
and  seamen.1 

The  two  fleets  engaged  each  other  on  Lake 
Champlain  on  October  11,  12,  and  13,  1776. 
Ten  of  the  American  vessels  were  captured 
or  destroyed.  General  Waterbury,  second 
in  command,  and  110  prisoners,  were  cap 
tured.  In  killed  and  wounded  Arnold  lost 
about  eighty  men;  and  the  British  forty. 
The  British  were  left  in  command  of  the 
Lake;  the  Americans  retreated  to  Ticon- 
deroga.2 

Although  most  decisively  defeated  in  the 
battle  upon  the  Lake,  Arnold  had  delayed 
the  advance  of  the  British  some  two  or  three 
months,  while  they  were  obtaining  a  naval 
superiority.  This  delay  had  far-reaching 
consequences.  Carleton  now  found  the  sea 
son  too  late  to  pursue  his  advantage,  and  to 
make,  or  attempt  to  make,  a  juncture  with 
Howe  to  the  southward.  He  therefore  soon 
returned  to  winter  quarters  at  Montreal. 
When  Burgoyne,  in  1777,  repeated  the  at 
tempt  to  penetrate  to  the  Hudson,  Howe's 
removal  of  his  army  to  the  Chesapeake  in 
his  movement  against  Philadelphia,  de 
prived  Burgoyne's  army  of  the  support  on 

1.  Force,  American  Archives,  5th,  II,  1178- 
79;  Clowes,  Royal  Navy,  III,   353-370,   Chap 
ter  XXXI,  written  by  Captain  A.  T.  Mahan. 

2.  Force,  American  Archives,  5th,  II,  1079- 
80;  Almon's  Remembrancer,   1777,  356. 


78     Arazrv  of  the  American  Revolution 

the  Hudson,  which  it  might  have  had  in  the 
fall  of  1776.  It  has  been  strikingly  said, 
by  Captain  Mahan,  that  Arnold's  and  Carle- 
ton's  naval  campaign  on  Lake  Champlain 
was  a  "strife  of  pigmies  for  the  prize  of  a 
continent."  Although  the  American  flo 
tilla  was  wiped  out,  "never  had  any  force, 
big  or  small,  lived  to  better  purpose,  or  died 
more  gloriously;  for  it  had  saved  the  Lake 
for  that  year."1 

1.  Clowes,  Royal  Navy,  III,  363,  368.  In 
the  campaign  of  Burgoyne,  in  July,  1777,  the 
British  destroyed  or  captured  a  small  Ameri 
can  flotilla  at  Skenesborough. — Winsor,  Nar 
rative  and  Critical  History,  VI,  297. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE    ORGANIZATION     OF     THE     MARINE 
COMMITTEE 

In  the  years  immediately  preceding  the 
Revolution  the  four  New  England  colonies 
were  largely  engaged  in  shipbuilding,  fish 
ing,  whaling,  and  commerce.  The  forests  of 
Maine  and  New  Hampshire  afforded  incom 
parable  oaks  and  white  pines  for  ships.  In 
deed,  not  a  few  of  these  trees  were  sealed 
for  the  use  of  the  Royal  Navy,  and  their  high 
quality  authenticated,  by  the  mark  of  the 
"King's  broad  arrow."  New  England's 
hardy  dwellers  on  the  seacoast  had  long  en 
gaged  in  fishing  on  the  Newfoundland  banks, 
or  in  whaling  in  many  seas,  and  had  bred  a 
race  of  sailors.  The  Atlantic  withheld  few 
secrets  from  the  bold  Yankee  skippers. 
They  were  equally  at  home  in  the  coastwise 
navigation,  reaching  from  Nova  Scotia  to 
Florida,  in  deep-sea  voyages  to  the  mother 
land  or  the  Continent,  in  skirting  the  Guinea 
coast  in  quest  of  its  dark-skinned  trade,  or 
in  slipping  down  the  trade  winds  with  can 
vas  set  for  the  sunny  sugar  islands  of  the 


8o     Xai'\'  of  the  America)!  Revolution 

West  Indies  or  the  Spanish  Main.  In 
no  other  section  of  the  revolting  colonies  was 
the  first  formal  movement  for  the  building 
of  a  Continental  navy  so  likely  to  be  made 
as  in  New  England.  Here  were  ships,  sail 
ors,  and  a  knowledge  of  the  sea. 

Certainly  not  a  whit  behind  the  other 
three  New  England  states  in  nautical  inter 
ests  was  little  sea-cleft  Rhode  Island.  In 
the  establishing  of  state  navies  she  had 
moved  first,  and  on  June  15,  1775,  had  put 
two  vessels  in  commission.  On  the  same 
day  her  Commodore  Whipple  captured  an 
armed  tender  of  the  British  frigate  "Rose"- 
the  first  authorized  capture  made  by  the 
Americans  at  sea  during  the  Revolution.1 
Already  her  coasts  and  her  trade  wrere  being 
annoyed  by  the  enemy.  It  was  then  in 
keeping  with  her  maritime  character,  with 
her  forwardness  in  naval  enterprise,  and 
with  her  needs  for  defence,  that  her  Assem 
bly  should  have  instructed  her  two  delegates 
to  the  Continental  Congress,  on  August  26, 
1775,  "to  use  their  whole  influence,  at  the 
ensuing  Congress,  for  building  at  the  Conti 
nental  expense,  a  Fleet  of  sufficient  force  for 
the  protection  of  these  Colonies,  and  for  em 
ploying  them  in  such  manner  and  places  as 
will  most  effectually  annoy  our  enemies, 
and  contribute  to  the  common  defence  of 
these  Colonies."  The  Assembly  was  per- 

1.      See  Chapter  XVII,  The  Minor  Navies  of 
the  Northern  States. 


A'arv  of  the  American  Revolution     81 

suaded  that  an  American  fleet  "would  great 
ly  and  essentially  conduce  to  the  preser 
vation  of  the  lives,  liberty,  and  property  of 
the  good  people  of  these  Colonies."1 

The  naval  situation  in  Congress  during 
the  fall  of  1775  and  the  winter  of  1775-76 
should  be  clearly  understood.  The  debates 
and  legislation  of  Congress  concerning  naval 
affairs  are  attached,  as  it  were,  to  two 
threads.  One  thread,  beginning  with  the 
appointment  of  a  committee,  on  October  5, 
1775,  to  prepare  a  plan  for  intercepting  two 
British  transports,  has  already  been  unrav 
eled.  The  other,  which  had  its  origin  in  the 
introduction  in  Congress  of  the  Rhode  Island 
instructions,  will  now  be  followed. 

The  delegates  of  Rhode  Island  to  the  Con 
gress  in  the  fall  of  1775  were  two  sterling 
patriots,  Samuel  Ward  and  Stephen  Hop 
kins.  Each  had  been  governor  of  Rhode  Is 
land,  and  each  had  grown  old  in  the  public 
service.  Once  bitter  political  rivals,  they 
were  now  yoked  together  in  the  common 
cause  of  their  state  and  country.  On  Oc 
tober  3;  1775,  one  of  the  Rhode  Island  dele 
gates,  presumably  Samuel  Ward,  laid  before 
Congress  the  instructions  of  his  state  in  be 
half  of  a  Continental  fleet.  On  this  day  the 
consideration  of  the  instructions  went  over 
until  the  6th,  and  on  the  6th  until  the  7th.2 


1.  Force,  American  Archives,  4th,  III,  231 ; 
Sparks,  American  Biography,  2nd,  IX,  314-15. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Octo- 


82     Naz'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

When  the  Rhode  Island  instructions  came 
up  on  October  7,  a  debate  ensued,  a  synop 
sis  of  which  has  been  left  us  by  John  Adams.1 
The  discussion  was  participated  in  by  Rob 
ert  Treat  Paine,  Samuel  Adams,  and  John 
Adams  of  Massachusetts,  John  Rutledge 
and  Christopher  Gadsden  of  South  Carolina, 
Samuel  Chase  of  Maryland,  Stephen  Hop 
kins  of  Rhode  Island,  Dr.  John  J.  Zubly  of 
Georgia,  Eliphalet  Dyer  and  Silas  Deane  of 
Connecticut,  and  Peyton  Randolph  of  Vir 
ginia.  When  the  debate  took  place,  the 
consideration  of  the  Rhode  Island  instruc 
tions  had  been  postponed  until  the  16th, 
and  the  motion  before  the  Congress  was  to 
appoint  a  committee  "to  consider  the  whole 
subject." 

The  establishing  of  a  navy  naturally  found 
least  favor  among  the  members  coming  from 
the  agricultural  South,  and  most  support 
from  those  of  maritime  New  England. 
Chase,  of  Maryland,  declared,  "It  is  the  mad 
dest  idea  in  the  world  to  think  of  building 
an  American  fleet;  its  latitude  is  wonderful; 
we  should  mortgage  the  whole  continent." 
He  added,  however:  "We  should  provide, 
for  gaining  intelligence,  two  swift  sailing 
vessels."  Zubly,  of  Georgia,  said:  "If  the 
plans  of  some  gentlemen  are  to  take  place, 
an  American  fleet  must  be  a  part  of  it,  ex- 


ber   3,    1775;   Force,    American   Archives   4th, 
III,  1888-91;  Works   of  John  Adams,  II,  462. 
1.      Works  of  John  Adams,  II,  463-4. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     83 

travagant  as  it  is."  Gadsden,  of  South 
Carolina,  temperately  favored  the  procur 
ing  of  armed  vessels,  thinking  that  it  was 
"absolutely  necessary  that  some  plan  of  de 
fence,  by  sea,  should  be  adopted."  He 
was  opposed  to  the  "extensiveness  of  the 
Rhode  Island  plan/'  although  he  thought 
that  it  should  be  considered.  The  friends  of 
the  navy  acted  on  the  defensive.  They  prob 
ably  realized  that  their  cause  might  well 
bide  its  time.  Its  opponents,  to  use  John 
Adams's  phrase,  were  "lightly  skirmishing." 
In  the  end  the  motion  was  lost,  and  consider 
ation  of  the  instructions  was  deferred  until 
the  16th. 

On  October  16,  and  again  on  November 
16,  the  Rhode  Island  instructions  were  post 
poned.1  Samuel  Ward  had  hopes  for  a  fa 
vorable  action  on  the  latter  day.  On  No 
vember  16  he  wrote  from  Philadelphia  to 
his  brother  in  Rhode  Island:  "Our  instruc 
tion  for  an  American  fleet  has  been  long 
upon  the  table.  When  it  was  first  present 
ed,  it  was  looked  upon  as  perfectly  chimer 
ical;  but  gentlemen  now  consider  it  in  a  very 
different  light.  It  is  this  day  to  be  taken 
into  consideration,  and  I  have  great  hopes 
of  carrying  it.  Dr.  Franklin,  Colonel  Lee, 
the  two  Adamses,  and  many  others,  will  sup 
port  it.  If  it  succeeds,  I  shall  remember 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Octo 
ber  16,  November  16,  1775. 


84     A'ai'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

your  ideas  of  our  building  two  of  the  ships."1 
The  several  postponements  of  the  Rhode 
Island  instructions  make  it  clear  that  Con 
gress  was  slow  to  reach  the  conclusion  that 
the  "building  of  a  fleet"  was  desirable  or 
feasible.  It  was  one  thing  to  fit  out  a  few 
small  vessels  for  intercepting  British  trans 
ports,  and  quite  another  to  build  a  fleet 
of  frigates.  It  is  not  surprising  that  under 
the  circumstances  Congress  hesitated  to 
embark  on  the  larger  undertaking.  The 
difference  in  the  presentation  to  Congress  of 
the  two  propositions,  both  of  which  involved 
the  procuring  of  a  naval  armament,  is  wor 
thy  of  note,  for  it  had  its  influence  on  leg 
islation.  The  appointment  of  a  committee 
to  prepare  a  plan  for  intercepting  trans 
ports,  put  the  question  in  a  softened,  more 
veiled,  and  less  direct  form.  It  pointed 
the  wedge  of  naval  legislation  by  a  tactful 
presentation,  and  drove  it  home  with  an 
exigency. 

In  Chapter  I  the  increase  of  sentiment  in 
favor  of  a  naval  armament  during  the  latter 
part  of  October  and  during  November  has 
been  shown,  and  the  important  naval  legis 
lation  of  November  has  been  presented. 
It  was  now  only  a  question  of  time  until 
Congress  would  heed  the  recommendations 
of  Rhode  Island.  On  December  9,  1775, 
the  Rhode  Island  instructions  once  more 


1.      Gammell,     Life    of    Samuel     Ward,    in 
Sparks 's  American   Biography,   2nd,  IX,  316 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     85 

came  up,  and  a  day  for  their  consideration 
was  fixed,  Monday,  December  II.1  On  the 
llth,  "  agreeable  to  the  order  of  the  day, 
the  Congress  took  into  consideration  the 
instructions  given  to  the  delegates  of  Rhode 
Island;"  whereupon  a  committee  of  twelve 
was  appointed  to  devise  ways  and  means 
for  furnishing  these  colonies  with  a  naval 
armament.2  This  committee  performed  its 
work  with  commendable  celerity,  and 
brought  in,  on  December  13,  one  of  the  most 
important  reports  in  the  history  of  the 
naval  affairs  under  the  Revolution,  for  by 
its  acceptance  Congress  committed  itself  to 
the  establishment  of  a  considerable  naval 
force.  Congress  determined  to  build  thir 
teen  frigates,  five  of  32,  five  of  28,  and 
three  of  24  guns,  to  be  distributed,  as  re 
gards  the  place  of  their  construction,  among 
the  states  as  follows :  New  Hampshire,  one; 
Massachusetts,  two;  Rhode  Island,  two; 
Connecticut,  one;  New  York,  two;  Pennsyl 
vania,  four;  and  Maryland,  one.  It  was 
estimated  that  these  ships  would  cost  on 
the  average  $66,666.67  each,  and  that  their 
whole  cost  would  amount  to  $866,666.67. 
All  the  materials  for  fitting  them  for  sea 
could  be  procured  in  America  except  can 
vas  and  gunpowder.3 


1.  Journals   of   Continental   Congress,    De 
cember  9,  1775. 

2.  Ibid.,  December  .±1,  1775. 

3.  Ibid.,  December  13,  1775. 


86     ATaz'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

On  December  14  a  committee  consisting 
of  one  member  from  each  colony  was  chosen 
by  ballot  to  take  charge  of  the  building  and 
fitting  out  of  these  vessels.  The  members 
chosen  with  their  states  were  as  follows: 
Josiah  Bartlett,  New  Hampshire;  John  Han 
cock,  Massachusetts;  Stephen  Hopkins, 
Rhode  Island;  Silas  Deane,  Connecticut; 
Francis  Lewis,  New  York;  Stephen  Crane, 
New  Jersey;  Robert  Morris,  Pennsylvania; 
George  Read,  Delaware;  Samuel  Chase, 
Maryland;  R.  H.  Lee,  Virginia;  Joseph 
Hewes,  North  Carolina;  Christopher  Gads- 
den,  South  Carolina;  John  Houston,  Geor 
gia.1  This  committee  was  substantially  the 
same  as  that  which  reported1  the  naval  in 
crease  on  the  13th;  the  only  changes  were  in 
the  members  from  Massachusetts  and  Mary 
land,  and  in  the  addition  of  a  member  from 
Georgia.  The  committee  was  a  very  able 
one,  comprising  several  of  the  foremost  men 
of  the  Revolution.  Hancock,  Morris,  Hop 
kins,  and  Hewes  were  especially  interested 
in  naval  and  maritime  affairs.  The  absence 
of  the  name  of  John  Adams  is  probably  ac 
counted  for  by  his  return  home  early  in 
December. 

This  new  committee  was  soon  designated 
as  the  Marine  Committee,  by  which  name 
it  was  referred  to  throughout  the  Revolu 
tion.  Larger,  and,  with  its  engrossing  work 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  De 
cember  14,  1775. 


Xct'i'v  of  tlic  American  Revolution     87 

of  building  and  fitting  out  the  thirteen  fri 
gates,  more  active  than  the  Naval  Commit 
tee,  it  soon  overshadowed  and  finally  ab 
sorbed  its  colleague.  This  absorbtion  was 
facilitated  no  doubt  by  the  fact  that  the 
four  members  of  the  Naval  Committee  re 
maining  in  January,  1776,  also  belonged 
to  the  new  committee.  With  the  exception 
of  the  rendering  of  its  accounts,  the  duties 
of  the  Naval  Committee  came  to  an  end  with 
the  sailing  of  Hopkins's  fleet  in  February, 
1776.1  The  Marine  Committee  now  ac 
quired  a  firm  grasp  of  the  naval  business  of 
the  colonies,  and  from  this  time  until  De 
cember,  1779,  it  was  the  recognized  and  re 
sponsible  head  of  the  Naval  Department, 
and  as  such,  during  the  period  that  saw 
the  rise  and  partial  decline  of  the  Conti 
nental  navy,  its  history  is  of  prime  im 
portance. 

The  Marine  Committee  like  the  Naval 
Committee  had  at  Philadelphia  an  office  of 
its  own,  and  held  its  sessions  in  the  evening. 
Its  officers  consisted  of  a  chairman  or  presi 
dent,  a  vice-president,  and  a  secretary.2 
Its  clerical  force  comprised  one  or  more 
clerks.  On  June  6,  1777,  Congress  resolved 
that  five  of  its  members — which  number 
thereafter  constituted  a  quorum — should 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress.  Janu 
ary  25,  September  19.  1776.      See  Ford's  new 
edition  of  the  Journals. 

2,  The  Secretary  of  the  Marine  Committee 
was  John  Brown. 


88     Nai'\  of  the  American  Revolution 

form  a  "board"  for  the  transaction  of  busi 
ness.1  Each  of  the  thirteen  states  had  one 
member  on  the  Committee.  Rarely  did 
more  than  one-half  of  the  Committee's  mem 
bers  attend  its  sessions.  Its  personnel  was 
continually  changing.  This  was  necessita 
ted  in  part  by  a  similar  change  in  the  mem 
bership  of  Congress;  as  the  old  members 
retired,  the  new  ones  filled  their  places. 
The  members  of  the  Marine  Committee  re 
ceived  no  pay  for  their  nayal  services  as 
such.  Each  state  of  course  paid  its  mem 
ber  of  the  Committee  for  his  services  as  a 
delegate  to  the  Continental  Congress.  The 
wages  of  the  secretary  of  the  Committee 
and  of  its  clerical  force  varied.  On  June  16, 
1778,  the  Committee  was  permitted  to  raise 
the  wages  of  its  clerks  to  $100  a  month.2 
The  secretary  was  paid  at  the  rate  of  $8.000 
a  year  after  November  2,  1778.3  During 
1778  and  1779  Congress  was  raising  the 
salaries  of  its  executive  employees  because 
of  the  depreciation  of  the  currency. 

The  most  responsible  duties  of  the  Com 
mittee  naturally  fell  to  the  four  or  five 
members  oldest  in  its  service.  From  this 
class  it  drew  its  chairmen.  Three  out  of 
the  five  men  who  are  known  to  have  filled 
this  office  were  on  the  first  list  of  the  Com- 


1.      Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  June 
,  1777. 


6 

2.  Ibid.,  June  16,  1778. 

3.  Ibid.,  January  27,  1780. 


Xtri'y  of  t/ic  American  Revolution     89 

mit tee's  members.  During  possibly  all  of 
1776,  and  for  a  part  of  1777,  courtly  John 
Hancock  presided  over  the  Marine  Com 
mittee,  while  at  the  same  time  he  dignified 
the  chair  of  the  President  of  Congress.  In 
December,  1777,  Henry  Laurens  of  South 
Carolina  had  succeeded  to  both  of  Han 
cock's  positions.1  In  1778  and  1779  the 
mantles  of  the  first  leaders  in  naval  admin 
istration,  whether  they  exactly  fitted  or 
not,  were  worn  by  Richard  Henry  Lee,  "one 
of  the  fine  fellows  from  Virginia";  Samuel 
Adams  of  Massachusetts ;  and  William  Whip- 
pie  of  New  Hampshire.  Lee  was  chairman 
in  the  summer  of  1778.  Probably  before 
December  of  that  year,  certainly  by  that 
time,  Adams  had  succeeded  him.2  Adams 

1.  Journals    of    Continental  Congress,  De 
cember  27,  1777. 

2.  Lee,  however,  signed  a  letter  as  chair 
man    in    March,     1779.      Relative    to    Samuel 
Adams's  work  in  the  Marine  Committee,  these 
words    of     his    biographer     possess    interest: 
"Upon  his  arrival  in  Congress  [May  21,  1778], 
he  was  added    to   the    Marine    Committee,    of 
which  important  Board  he  was  made  chairman, 
and  continued  to  direct  its  duties,  for  the  next 
two  years.      In  this  arduous  position,  judged 
from  the  great  number  of  reports  and  the  mul 
tiplicity   of  business  submitted   to  it,  Adams 
might  fairly  have  claimed  exemption  from  all 
other  employments." — Wells,  Life  and  Public 
Services  of  Samuel  Adams,  III,  13.     Mr.  Wells 
exaggerates  the  length  of  the  naval  services  of 
Adams,  who  left  Philadelphia  about  June  20, 
1779;  whereupon    William  Whipple  succeeded 
him  as    chairman   of   the   Marine  Committee. 


90     A'rti'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

in  turn  yielded  in  June,  1779,  to  Whipple, 
who  continued  to  fill  the  office  until  the 
Committee  was  superseded  by  a  Board  of 
Admiralty  in  December,  1779. 

There  were  other  members  besides  the 
chairmen  upon  whose  shoulders  rested  the 
burden  of  the  naval  business.  Morris, 
Hewes,  and  Hopkins  have  been  previously 
mentioned  as  members  who  wTere  deeply 
interested  in  naval  affairs.  Morris  was  for 
a  time  vice-president  of  the  Committee. 
During  the  winter  of  1776-77,  while  Congress 
was  at  Baltimore,  he  remained  in  Philadel 
phia,  and,  for  a  time,  practically  without 
assistance  from  the  Committee,  adminis 
tered  the  naval  affairs  of  the  colonies. 
William  Ellery  of  Rhode  Island,  who  on 
October  13, 1776,  succeeded  Hopkins, showed 
zeal  in  the  business  of  the  navy.  The  work 
of  Francis  Lewis  of  New  York  deserves 
mention.  No  doubt  there  were  other 
members  whose  naval  services  were  consid 
erable.  Unfortunately,  time  has  been  care 
less  with  many  of  the  records  of  the  Marine 
Committee. 

In  carrying  out  the  resolutions  of  Con 
gress  of  December  13,  1775,  authorizing  the 
building  of  thirteen  frigates,  the  Marine 
Committee  employed  agents  to  superin 
tend  the  work.  These  agents,  who  were 
variously  designated,  were  residents  of  the 
colonies  in  which  they  were  employed,  and 
their  selection  was  usually  determined  by 


A  t.c'v  of  tlie  American  Revolution     91 

local  advice  and  influence.  The  New  Hamp 
shire  frigate,  the  "Raleigh,"  32,  was  built 
at  Portsmouth  under  the  direction  of  John 
Langdon,  formerly  a  member  of  the  Naval 
Committee,  but  now  Continental  agent  at 
Portsmouth.  He  employed  three  master- 
builders,  who  completed  the  frigate  within 
less  than  sixty  days  after  raising  it.1  The 
Massachusetts  frigates,  the  "  Hancock,"  32, 
and  the  "  Boston,"  24,  were  built  at  Salis 
bury  and  Newburyport,  under  the  direction 
of  an  agent.2 

The  Rhode  Island  vessels,  the  "  War 
ren,"  32,  and  the  ''Providence,"  28,  were 
constructed  at  Providence,  under  the  super 
intendence  of  a  committee  of  twelve  influ 
ential  men  of  that  city,  who  were  appointed 
by  Stephen  Hopkins,  the  Rhode  Island 
member  of  the  Marine  Committee.  Certain 
complaints  were  lodged  with  the  Marine 
Committee  against  the  committee  at  Provi 
dence.  One  of  these  was  made  by  Commo 
dore  Hopkins,  who  charged  that  the  "  Provi 
dence"  and  the  "Warren"  had  cost  twrice 
as  much  as  their  contract  price,  "owing  to 
some  of  the  very  committee  that  built  the 
ships  taking  the  workmen  and  the  stock 
agreed  for  off  to  work  and  fit  their  priva 
teers,  and  even  threatening  the  workmen 


1.  New  Hampshire  Gazette,  June  1,  1776. 

2.  Probably  put  upon  the  stocks  at  Salis 
bury  and  completed  at  Newburyport. 


UNIVERSITY 


>^ 


92     A  fl^'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

if  they  did  not  work  for  them."1  When  in 
the  fall  of  1776  the  Marine  Committee  wrote 
to  the  committee,  blaming  its  members  for 
some  of  their  proceedings,  they  relinquished 
their  authority  over  the  two  vessels  to 
Stephen  Hopkins.2 

The  "Trumbull"  was  built  under  the  di 
rection  of  agents  at  Chatham  on  the  Con 
necticut  river.3  Two  other  frigates  were 
begun  in  Connecticut  in  1777,  the  "Confed 
eracy,"  36,  on  the  Thames  river  between 
Norwich  and  New  London,  and  the  "  Bour 
bon,"  28,  at  Chatham  on  the  Connecticut. 
Each  of  these  two  frigates  was  constructed 
under  a  superintendent  responsible  to  Gov 
ernor  Jonathan  Trumbull  and  the  Connec 
ticut  Council  of  Safety.4  Two  Commission 
ers  at  Poughkeepsie,  New  York,  had  charge 
of  the  work  on  the  "Montgomery,"  28,  and 
"  Congress,"  24.  The  Marine  Committee 
kept  fairly  well  in  its  own  hands  the  direc 
tion  of  the  building  at  Philadelphia  of  the 
Pennsylvania  frigates,  the  "  Randolph,"  32, 
the  "Washington,"  32,  the  "Effingham," 

~T  Edward  Field,  State  of  Rhode  Island 
and  Providence  Plantations,  II,  423. 

2.  Staples,    Annals   of    Providence,    267-8; 
Marine  Committee  Letter  Book,  Marine  Com 
mittee  to  Stephen  Hopkins,  and  Marine  Com 
mittee  to  Committee  for  Building  the  Conti 
nental    Frigates    at    Providence,    October    9, 
1776. 

3.  Colonial    Records    of  Connecticut,  XV, 
526. 

4.  Records  of  State  of  Connecticut,  I,  177. 


93 


28,  and  the  "Delaware/'  24.  The  "Vir 
ginia/'  28,  was  built  at  Baltimore,  Mary 
land,  with  the  assistance  of  the  Baltimore 
Committee  of  Observation.1  When  under 
the  resolves  of  Congress  of  November  20, 
1776,  two  frigates  were  begun  at  the  Gos- 
port  navy-yard  in  Virginia,  the  work  was 
placed  in  -charge  of  two  commissioners 
and  a  master-builder.  Richard  Henry  Lee, 
the  Virginia  member  of  the.  Marine  Commit 
tee,  made  the  contract  with  the  master- 
builder.2 

The  need  of  some  one  to  receive  and  dis 
pose  of  prizes  soon  led  to  the  appointment 
of  "agents  for  prizes"  in  the  leading  sea 
ports  of  the  colonies.  On  April  23,  1776, 
Congress,  on  the  recommendation  of  the 
Marine  Committee,  appointed  prize  agents 
as  follows:  One  at  Boston;  one  at  Provi 
dence;  one  at  New  London,  Connecticut; 
one  at  New  York;  two  at  Philadelphia;  one 
at  Baltimore;  one  at  Williamsburg,  Virginia; 
and  one  each  at  Wilmington,  Newbern,  and 
Edenton,  North  Carolina.3  On  June  25, 
1776,  Congress  appointed  an  agent  at  Ports 
mouth,  New  Hampshire.4  In  November, 

1.  Force,  American  Archives,  5th,  II,  350 
636,  989;  III,  827. 

2.  Marine  Committee  Letter  Book,  Marine 
Committee  to  David  Stodder,  master-builder, 
April  11,  1778. 

3.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  April 
23,  1776. 

4.  Ibid.,  June  25,  1776. 


94     -Vary  of  the  American  Revolution 

1776,  the  Marine  Committee  selected  two 
prize  agents  for  South  Carolina  and  one  for 
Georgia.1  This  list  was  not  completed  until 
September  1,  1779,  when  Congress  appointed 
a  prize  agent  for  New  Jersey.2  These  agents 
had  charge  of  all  Continental  prizes  sent  into 
their  respective  states.  By  far  the  most  im 
portant  agency  was  that  of  John  Bradford 
at  Boston.  It  may  be  estimated  that  one- 
half  of  all  the  prizes  captured  by  the  Conti 
nental  vessels  in  American  waters  were  or 
dered  to  Boston.  The  naval  port  second  in 
importance  was  Philadelphia. 

The  duties  of  the  prize  agents  were  to 
libel  all  of  the  Continental  prizes  sent  into 
their  jurisdiction,  see  that  the  prizes  were 
tried  by  the  proper  admiralty  court;  and 
after  they  had  been  legally  condemned,  to 
sell  them,  and  make  an  equitable  distribu- 

1.  Force,     American     Archives,     5th,     III, 
671,  739-40.      The  first  prize  agents  to  be  ap 
pointed,     many    of    whom   held    their    offices 
throughout   the   greater   part   of   the    Revolu 
tion,  were  as  follows:     John  Langdon,   Ports 
mouth;   John    Bradford,    Boston;    Daniel   Til- 
linghast,     Providence;    Nathaniel    Shaw,    jr., 
New   London;  Jacobus   Vanzant,    New   York; 
John  Nixon  and  John  Maxwell  Nesbit,  Phila 
delphia;  William  Lux,  Baltimore;  John  Taze- 
well,  Williamsburg ;    Robert    Smith,   Edenton; 
Richard    Ellis,    Newbern ;    Cornelius    Harnet, 
Wilmington ;  Livinus  Clarkson  and  John  Dor- 
sius,  Charleston;  John  Wereat,  Savannah;  and 
Okey  Hoaglandt,  New  Jersey. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,   Sep 
tember  1,  1779. 


Naz'y  of  the  American  Revolution     95 

tion  of  the  proceeds,  in  accordance  with  the 
resolutions  of  Congress  governing  the  shar 
ing  of  prizes.  The  prize  agents  were  direct 
ed  by  the  Marine  Committee  to  render  to  it 
a  quarterly  statement  showing  the  prizes 
received,  sales  effected,  and  distributions  of 
the  proceeds  made.1 

The  same  men  who  were  prize  agents  were 
also  as  a  rule  "  Continental  agents,"  in 
which  latter  capacity  they  served  the  vari 
ous  administrative  organs  of  Congress,  in 
cluding  the  Marine  Committee.  They  as 
sisted  the  Committee  and  commander-in- 
chief  of  the  fleet  in  purchasing,  refitting, 
provisioning,  and  manning  the  armed  ves 
sels.  The  naval  services  of  some  of  these 
men,  both  as  prize  agents  and  as  Continental 
agents,  were  so  considerable  as  to  render 
their  names  worthy  of  mention.  Most  con 
spicuous  among  the  several  naval  agents 
were  John  Bradford  of  Boston,  John  Nixon 
and  John  Maxwell  Nesbit  of  Philadelphia, 
John  Langdon  of  Portsmouth,  New  Hamp 
shire,  Nathaniel  Shaw,  jr.,  of  New  London, 
and  Daniel  Tillinghast  of  Providence. 

The  governors  and  legislatures  of  the  colo 
nies  and  other  local  governmental  authori 
ties  often  aided  the  Committee  in  its  work. 
The  work  of  Governor  Trumbull  and  the 
Connecticut  Council  of  Safety  in  the  build 
ing  of  the  Continental  frigates  in  that  state 

1.    Force,  American  Archives,  5th,  II,  1113-14. 


96     Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

has  already  been  noted.  In  the  latter  part 
of  1776  the  New  York  Convention  attempted 
in  behalf  of  the  Marine  Committee  to  secure 
the  two  Continental  frigates  at  Poughkeepsie 
from  the  British  when  they  occupied  the 
lower  Hudson.  Such  illustrations  could  be 
multiplied.  In  two  services  so  closely  con 
nected  as  the  navy  and  the  army,  the  offi 
cers  and  agents  of  one  were  naturally  now 
and  then  called  upon  to  serve  the  other. 
They  borrowed  from  and  lent  to  each  other 
cannon,  ammunition,  and  military  stores. 
The  Commissaries  of  one  and  the  Navy 
Boards  of  the  other  had  mutual  dealings. 
The  Commissary-General  of  Prisoners  of 
the  Army  had  much  to  do  with  the  care  of 
the  marine  prisoners. 

Towards  the  close  of  1776  the  unsatisfac 
tory  state  of  the  naval  business,  together 
with  its  increase  and  its  growing  complex 
ity,  forced  home  upon  the  Committee  the 
necessity  of  providing  some  permanent  force 
to  take  charge  of  the-details  of  naval  admin 
istration.  Accordingly,  on  November  6, 
1776,  Congress  at  the  instance  of  the  Marine 
Committee  resolved  "that  three  persons, 
well  skilled  in  maritime  affairs,  be  immedi 
ately  appointed  to  execute  the  business  of 
the  navy,  under  the  direction  of  the  marine 
committee/'1  Later  in  the  same  month 
John  Nixon,  John  Wharton,  and  Francis. 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Octo 
ber  28,  November  6,  1776. 


Xary  of  the  American  Revolution     97 

Hopkinson  were  selected  as  suitable  persons 
for  this  work,  all  three  living  within  or  near 
Philadelphia. 

Nixon  with  his  experience  as  a  shipping 
merchant  was  probably  best  fitted  for  his 
task.  Fancy  may  discern  a  poetic  fitness  in 
his  choice,  since  he  had  been  the  owner  of 
the  "Alfred/'  the  first  vessel  of  the  Ameri 
can  navy.  Nixon  also  had  the  distinction 
of  being  the  first  man  to  read  publicly  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  Wharton  be 
longed  to  the  distinguished  Philadelphia 
family  of  that  name.  Of  the  three  men, 
Hopkinson  probably  had  the  widest  culture. 
At  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution  he  was 
practicing  law  at  Bordentown,  New  Jersey. 
He  was  one  of  the  Signers  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence.  From  1779  to  1789  he 
was  judge  of  the  Admiralty  Court  of  Penn 
sylvania.  He  is  best  known,  however,  not 
for  his  substantial  services,  but  as  ^ie  au 
thor  of  the  humorous  ballad,  the  "  Battle  of 
the  Kegs." 

On  April  19,  1777,  Congress  on  the  motion 
of  John  Adams  decided  to  form  a  similar 
board  for  the  New  England  states,  the  mem 
bers  of  which  were  to  "reside  at  or  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Boston,  in  the  state  of 
Massachusetts  Bay,  with  a  power  to  adjourn 
to  any  part  of  New  England;  wrho  shall  have 
the  superintendence  of  all  naval  and  marine 
affairs  of  these  United  States  within  the 
four  eastern  states,  under  the  direction  o£* 


98     A'oz'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

the  marine  committee.'71  Adams  secured 
the  filling  of  this  board  with  some  difficulty 
owing  to  the  indifference  of  Congress  to  its 
establishment.  Finally,  nine  men  were  nom 
inated,  and  on  May  6  three  of  these  were  cho 
sen  commissioners,  James  Warren  of  Ply 
mouth,  Massachusetts;  William  Vernon  of 
Providence,  Rhode  Island;  and  John  Deshon 
of  New  London,  Connecticut.2 

Foremost  of  the  three  Commissioners  was 
Warren,  an  eminent  patriot,  who  had  been 
President  of  the  Massachusetts  Provincial 
Congress  and  also  of  the  Massachusetts 
Board  of  War.  He  was  an  intimate  friend 
of  John  and  Samuel  Adams,  and,  it  is  said, 
much  resembled  the  latter  in  character. 


1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  April 
19,  1777. 

2.  On  May  6,  1777,  John  Adams  wrote  to 
James  Warren  notifying  him  of  his  appoint 
ment.  ,  He  added  a  few  words  explaining  the 
character  of  the  position :     ' '  You  will  have  the 
building  and  fitting  of  all  ships,  the  appoint 
ment  of  officers,  the  establishment  of  arsenals 
and  magazines,  which  will  take  up  your  whole 
time;  but  it  will  be  honorable  to  be  so  capitally 
concerned  in  laying  a  foundation  of  a   great 
navy.      The  profit  to  you  will  be  nothing;  but 
the  honor  and  the  virtue  the  greater.      I  almost 
envy  you  this  employment." — Works  of  John 
Adams,  IX,  465.      On  May  9,  the  Rhode  Island 
member    of    the    Marine    Committee    notified 
William   Vernon  of  his  appointment. — Publi 
cations  of  the  Rhode  Island  Historical  Society, 
VIII,  206.      See  also  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society  Collections,  7th,  II,  45. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution     99 

Vernon,  who  served  as  President  of  the 
Navy  Board,  was  a  most  distinguished  New 
port  merchant  and  one  of  the  most  self-sac 
rificing  of  patriots.  During  the  Revolution 
he  advanced  large  sums  of  money  to  the 
government,  which  were  only  in  part  repaid. 
Before  the  war  his  trade  extended  to  all  the 
maritime  nations  of  Europe  and  to  the  West 
Indies  and  Africa.1  Deshon  was  of  Hugue 
not  descent.  He  was  conspicuous  in  the 
Revolutionary  party  of  New  London,  and 
was  a  captain  in  his  state's  military  forces. 
He  rendered  much  assistance  in  fitting  out 
the  Connecticut  navy. 

These  two  boards  were  variously  desig 
nated  in  the  official  documents  of  the  time. 
The  one  was  most  frequently  called  the 
Navy  Board  of  the  Middle  Department  or 
District,  or  the  Navy  Board  at  Philadelphia, 
Bordentown,  or  Baltimore,  according  to  its 
location  rjand  the  other,  the  Navy  Board  of 
the  Eastern  Department  or  District,  or  the 
Navy  Board  at  Boston.  The  Navy  Board 
at  Philadelphia  was  at  first  referred  to  as 
the  Continental  Navy  Board,  or  the  Board 
of  Assistants.  These  two  names  indicate 
that  when  the  board  at  Philadelphia  was 
formed,  the  establishing  of  a  second  board 
was  not  in  contemplation.  The  Navy  Board 
at  Philadelphia  seems  to  have  taken  little 
or  no  part  in  the  naval  affairs  in  New  Eng- 

1.  New  England  Historical  and  Genealogi 
cal  Register,  XXX,  316-18. 


ioo  .Y<77'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

land.  It  was  hardly  settled  in  its  work  be 
fore  the  Navy  Board  at  Boston  was  created. 
Attention  should  be  called  to  the  fact  that 
the  offices  of  Navy  Board  and  of  Commis 
sioner  of  the  Navy  had  long  been  established 
in  the  British  navy.  The  British  offices 
served  in  some  degree  as  models  to  Con 
gress  and  the  Marine  Committee.1 

Each  board  had  a  secretary,  treasurer, 
and  paymaster;  but  one  person  sometimes 
served  in  two,  or  even  the  three,  capacities. 
Each  board  had  one,  and  sometimes  two 
clerks.  A  clerkship  was  at  times  joined 
with  one  of  the  other  offices.  The  boards  as 
a  rule  selected  their  own  employees.  Any 

1.  When  the  Navy  Board  at  Philadelphia 
was  being  established  and  its  commissioners 
appointed,  William  Ellery  wrote  to  William 
Vernon  as  follows:  "I  should  be  glad  to  know 
what  is  the  Office  of  Commissioners  of  the 
Navy,  and  that  you  would  point  it  out  par 
ticularly;  unless  you  can  refer  me  to  some 
Author  who  particularly  describes.  The  Con 
duct  of  the  Affairs  of  a  Navy  as  well  as  those 
of  an  Army,  We  are  yet  to  learn.  We  are 
still  unacquainted  with  the  systematical  man 
agement  of  them,  although  We  have  made 
considerable  Progress  in  the  latter.  It  is  the 
Duty  of  every  Friend  to  his  Country  to  throw 
his  Knowledge  into  the  common  Stock.  I 
know  you  are  well  skilled  in  Commerce  and  I 
believe  you  are  acquainted  with  the  System  of 
the  British  Navy,  and  I  am  sure  of  your  Dispo 
sition  to  do  every  Service  to  the  Cause  of  Lib 
erty  in  your  Power.5' — Publications  of  Rhode 
Island  Historical  Society,  VIII,  201,  Papers  of 
William  Vernon  and  the  Navy  Board. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  101 

two  members  of  the  Navy  Board  at  Boston 
were  empowered  by  Congress  on  October 
23,  1777,  to  form  a  quorum.1 

With  the  exception  of  the  resignation  of 
Deshon  in  May,  1781,  the  Navy  Board  at 
Boston  did  not  change  in  personnel.  Its 
headquarters  remained  continually  at  Bos 
ton.  On  the  other  hand,  the  membership 
of  the  Navy  Board  at  Philadelphia  made 
several  changes.  On  May  9,  1778,  Wil 
liam  Smith  of  Baltimore  was  elected  in  the 
place  of  John  Nixon,  who  had  resigned.2 
On  August  19,  Hopkinson  and  Smith 
having  resigned,  Captain  Nathaniel 
Falconer  and  James  Searle,  both  of 
Pennsylvania,  were  appointed.3  Falconer 
declined  the  appointment;  Searle  accepted, 
but  resigned  on  September  26.4  Meanwhile, 
Wharton  had  resigned,  and  the  three  com- 
missionerships  were  vacant.  On  November 
4,  1778,  the  vacancies  were  filled  by  the  re- 
appointment  of  Wharton,  and  the  selection 
of  James  Read  of  Delaware,  the  clerk  and 
paymaster  of  the  Board,  and  William  Win 
der,5  a  captain  in  the  military  forces  of  Mary 
land  and  a  judge  of  the  court  of  appeals  of 
Somerset  county  in  that  state.  When  in 


1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Octo 
ber  23,  1777. 

2.  Ibid.,  May  9,  1778. 

3.  Ibid.,  August  19,  1778. 

4.  Ibid.,  September  28,  1778. 

5.  Ibid.,  November  4,  1778. 


IO2  Xavy  of  the  American  Revolution 

December,  1776,  Philadelphia  seemed  to  be 
in  danger  from  the  enemy,  Congress  and  the 
Board  retreated  to  Baltimore,  where  they 
spent  the  winter  of  1776-1777.  The  fortunes 
of  war  compelled  the  Board  in  the  fall  of 
1777  to  retreat  to  Bordentown,  New  Jersey; 
and  after  the  American  fleet  in  the  Dela 
ware  was  destroyed,  the  Marine  Committee 
early  in  1778  ordered  it  to  Baltimore,1 
where  it  was  situated  for  a  few  months.  In 
the  summer  of  1778  it  returned  permanently 
to  Philadelphia. 

The  salary  of  a  commissioner  of  the  navy 
was  first  fixed  at  $1,500  a  year.  On  October 
31,  1778,  "in  consideration  of  the  extensive 
business  of  their  departments,"  this  salary 
was  raised  to  $3,000,  and  on  November  12, 
1779,  on  the  depreciation  of  the  currency, 
to  $12,000.  It  was  reduced  on  September 
25,  1780,  to  $1,500,  and  was  now  paid  quar 
terly  in  specie  or  its  equivalent.  The  sal 
aries  of  the  employees  of  the  Navy  Boards 
underwent  like  variations.  Beginning  with 
$500,  they  advanced  in  some  instances  as 
high  as  $2,000  a  year.  On  August  4,  1778, 
the  clerk  of  the  Navy  Board  at  Boston  was 
made  a  special  allowance  of  $500,  "in  consid- 


1.  Marine  Committee  Letter  Book,  Marine 
Committee  to  Navy  Board  of  Middle  Depart 
ment,  January  22,  1778.  The  Philadelphia 
Board  was  ordered  on  January  22  to  remove 
to  Baltimore,  but  it  appears  that  it  did  not  go 
until  April. 


A'flT'v  of  the  American  Revolution  103 

eration  of  the  great  and  constant  business/' 
in  which  he  had  been  engaged.1 

To  recapitulate,  the  chief  agents  of  the 
Marine  Committee  were  these:  the  Navy 
Boards,  the  prize  agents,  the  Continental 
agents,  and  the  agents  for  building  vessels. 
After  the  creation  of  the  Navy  Boards,  the 
latter  three  classes  served  in  part  as  their 
sub-agents;  but  by  no  means  entirely  so, 
for  the  Marine  Committee  gave  many  orders 
over  the  heads  of  the  Boards. 

The  Marine  Committee  and  its  principal 
agents  employed  many  minor  agents.  One 
illustration,  taken  from  the  work  of  the 
Navy  Boards  as  purveyors  of  the  navy,  will 
suffice  to  show  the  subordinate  character  of 
the  services  which  these  minor  agents  ren 
dered.  It  is  recorded  that  the  Navy  Board 
at  Boston  had  in  its  employ  in  New  Hamp 
shire  "a  contractor  of  beef  for  the  navy," 
who  in  turn  had  in  his  employ  a-  single 
drover,  that  by  September,  1779,  had  pur 
chased  more  than  one  thousand  head  of 
cattle  for  the  use  of  the  Navy  Board  at 
Boston.2 


1.  For  salaries  of  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Navy  and  their  employees,  see  Journals  of  Con 
tinental  Congress,  November  7,  1776;  April  19, 
1777;    October    23,    1777;    October    10,    1778; 
October  31,   1778;  November  12,   1779;  Janu 
ary  28,  1780;  and  September  25,  1780. 

2.  Miscellaneous    Manuscripts,   Division  of 
Manuscripts,  Library  of  Congress. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  WORK    OF   THE    NAVY    BOARDS  AND 
THE  MARINE  COMMITTEE 

There  was  a  painful  lack  of  system  about 
the  business  methods  of  the  Naval  Depart 
ment  of  the  Revolution.  Then,  official  rou 
tine  was  not  settled  as  at  present.  Usage 
had  had  no  opportunity  to  establish  fixed 
and  orderly  forms  of  procedure;  and  amid 
the  distractions  of  war,  when  some  real  or 
supposed  emergency  was  continually  invit 
ing  one  authority  or  another  to  disregard 
regularity  and  order,  usage  could  obtain 
but  scant  permission  to  begin  its  work. 
Wars  are  famous  for  breaking  through,  not 
for  forming  a  crust  of  official  precedent. 
The  administrative  machinery  of  armies  and 
navies  tends  to  adapt  itself  to  the  condi 
tions  of  peace — now  the  normal  state  of  na 
tions.  During  long  periods  of  partial  stag 
nation  this  machinery  becomes  complicated; 
its  tension  is  weakened;  and  many  of  its 
axles  grow  rusty  from  disuse.  When  war 
breaks  out,  the  conditions  of  administra 
tion  are  greatly  changed.  A  thousand  ex 
tra  calls  for  work  to  be  done  at  once  are 


Nazy  of  the  American  Revolution  105 

loud  and  inexorable.  Expedition  must  be 
had  at  all  hazards  and  costs.  Rapid  action 
of  the  administrative  machinery  must  be 
obtained,  its  tension  screwed  down,  extra 
cog  wheels  discarded,  and  efficient  machin 
ists  substituted  for  the  dotards  of  peace. 
It  is  obvious  that  with  this  sort  of  difficulty 
those  who  managed  the  naval  affairs  during 
the  Revolution  did  not  have  to  contend,  for 
the  organ  of  naval  administration  was  then 
created  from  its  foundation.  Their  difficul 
ties  sprang  not  from  the  age,  but  from  the 
newness  of  this  organ.  It  lacked  a  nice  cor 
relation  of  parts,  the  smooth  action  that 
comes  from  long  service,  and  the  system 
that  immemorial  routine  establishes. 

The  absence  of  system  in  the  Naval  De 
partment  wras  most  conspicuous  in  the  ap 
pointment  of  naval  officers,  from  the  cap 
tain  to  the  coxswain.  This  work  was  shared 
by  Congress,  the  Marine  Committee,  the 
Navy  Boards,  the  Continental  agents,  the 
Commander-in-chief  of  the  navy,  the  com 
manders  of  vessels,  recruiting  agents,  the 
Commissioners  at  Paris,  and  the  commer 
cial  agents  residing  in  foreign  countries. 
Appointments  were  sometimes  actually  de 
termined  by  the  governors  of  states,  "  con 
spicuous  citizens/7  and  local  governmental 
bodies.  A  good  illustration  of  the  way  in 
which  convenience  was  sometimes  consulted 
is  found  in  the  resolution  of  Congress  of 
June  14,  1777,  which  designated  William 


io6  Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

Whipplo,  the  New  Hampshire  member  of 
the  Marine  Committee,  John  Langdon,  Con 
tinental  agent  at  Portsmouth,  and  John 
Paul  Jones,  the  commander  of  the  ship 
''Ranger/7  to  select  the  commissioned  and 
warrant  officers  of  the  "Ranger,"  then  at 
Portsmouth.1  In  a  new  navy  without  esprit 
de  corps,  to  permit  a  commander  to  have  a 
voice  in  choosing  his  own  officers  often  made 
for  proper  subordination. 

It  was  a  source  of  annoyance  and  confu 
sion  to  the  Navy  Boards  to  find  through  ac 
cidental  sources  of  information,  as  they 
sometimes  did,  that  the  Marine  Committee 
had  given  orders  to  naval  agents  to  transact 
business,  the  immediate  control  of  which 
was  vested  in  the  Boards.  Naval  agents 
sometimes  discovered  that  they  were  serving 
in  a  single  task  two  or  three  naval  masters. 
Irregularities  were  chargeable  not  alone  to 
the  Naval  Department.  The  governor  of  a 
state  was  known  on  his  own  authority,  to 
the  vexation  of  the  rightful  executive,  to 
take  part  in  the  direction  of  the  cruises  of 
Continental  vessels.  Naval  commanders 
were  now  and  then  guilty  of  breaches  of 
their  orders.  Congress  had  its  share  in  the 
confusing  of  business.  On  one  occasion, 
making  a  display  of  its  ignorance,  it  sus 
pended  Captain  John  Roach  from  a  com 
mand  to  which  he  had  not  been  appointed; 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  June 
14,  1777. 


Xary  of  the  American  Revolution   107 

Roach  in  fact  was  not  an  officer  in  the  Con 
tinental  navy.1  It  sometimes  made  imprac 
ticable  details  of  the  armed  vessels.  It 
also  exercised  its  privilege  of  referring  to 
special  committees  bits  of  business  that 
logically  belonged  to  the  Marine  Committee. 

These  irregularities,  notwithstanding  their 
number,  were  after  all  exceptions.  The  very 
nature  of  business  forces  it  to  follow  some 
system,  however  imperfectly.  Where  there 
is  a  number  of  agents  there  must  be  a 
division  of  labor.  Without  such  arrange 
ments  chaos  would  exist.  It  is  therefore 
possible  to  set  forth  with  some  detail  the 
respective  duties  of  the  Marine  Committee, 
the  Navy  Boards,  and  the  various  naval 
agents.  The  work  and  duties  of  the  naval 
agents  have  already  been  treated  with  suffi 
cient  particularity.  The  work  of  the  Navy 
Boards  and  the  Marine  Committee  will  be 
considered  in  this  chapter. 

The  duties  of  the  Navy  Boards  were  of  a 
varied  character.  Each  Board  superin 
tended  the  building,  manning,  fitting,  pro 
visioning,  and  repairing  of  the  armed  ves 
sels  in  its  district.  It  kept  a  register  of  the 
vessels  which  it  built,  showing  the  name, 
dimensions,  burden,  number  of  guns,  tackle, 
apparel,  and  furniture  of  each  vessel.  Each 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  June 
14,  1777.  Marine  Committee  Letter  Book, 
Committee  to  Navy  Board  at  Boston,  March 
6.  1778. 


io8  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

Board  had  records  of  all  the  officers,  sailors, 
and  marines  in  its  district,  and  required  the 
commanders  to  make  returns  of  these  items 
upon  the  termination  of  their  cruises.  It 
was  the  duty  of  the  Boards  to  notify  the 
Marine  Committee  of  the  arrivals  and  de 
partures  of  the  Continental  vessels.  They 
were  required  to  settle  the  naval  accounts 
and  "to  keep  fair  Books  of  all  expenditures 
of  Publick  Moneys."  The  records  of  their 
transactions  were  to  be  open  to  the  inspec 
tion  of  Congress  and  the  Marine  Committee. 
They  rendered  to  the  Committee  annually, 
or  oftener  when  required,  an  account  of 
their  disbursements.  The  Boards  paid  the 
salaries  of  officers  and  seamen,  and  audited 
the  accounts  of  the  prize  agents.1 

In  the  appointment  of  officers  the  Navy 
Board  at  Boston  was  given  a  freer  rein  than 
was  its  colleague  at  Philadelphia.  The 
share  of  the  Navy  Boards  in  selecting  officers 
and  in  enlisting  seamen  was  about  as  fol 
lows.  The  Boards  superintended  the  ap 
pointing  of  petty  officers  and  the  enlisting 
of  seamen,  both  of  which  duties  were 
chiefly  performed  by  the  commanders  of 
vessels  and  by  recruiting  agents.  The 
Boards  generally  selected  the  warrant  offi 
cers,  very  frequently  on  the  recommenda 
tion  of  the  commanders.  If  the  one  appoint- 

1.  Publications  of  Rhode  Island  Historical 
Society,  VIII,  208,  Instructions  of  Marine  Com 
mittee  to  the  Eastern  Navy  Board,  July  10, 1777 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  109 

ment  to  the  office  of  Commander-in-chief  be 
disregarded,  there  existed  but  two  classes  of 
commissioned  officers  in  the  Revolutionary 
navy,  captains  and  lieutenants.  The 
Boards  often  chose  the  lieutenants;  and 
they  generally  recommended  the  captains' 
to  the  Marine  Committee.  The  Commit 
tee  furnished  the  Boards  with  blank  war 
rants  and  commissions,  signed  by  the  Presi 
dent  of  Congress.  When  one  of  these  forms 
was  properly  rilled  out  by  a  navy  board  for 
an  officer,  the  validity  of  his  title  to  his 
position  and  rank  could  not  be  questioned. 
The  Boards  were  empowered  under  cer 
tain  circumstances,  and  in  accordance  with 
the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  navy  and 
the  resolutions  of  Congress,  to  order  the 
holding  of  courts  of  enquiry  and  courts-mar 
tial.  They  could  administer  oaths  to  the 
judges  and  officials  of  these  courts.  A 
Board  might  suspend  an  officer  of  the  navy 
who  treated  it  with  "  indecency  and  disre 
spect/'1  On  October  23,  1777,  the  Navy 
Board  at  Boston  was  given  power  to  sus 
pend  a  naval  officer,  "  until  the  pleasure  of 
Congress  shall  be  known/'2  Not  always 

1.  Journals   of    Continental    Congress,    De-. 
cember  30,   1777.      The  occasion  of  this  grant 
of  power  by  Congress  was  a  letter  complaining 
of    "disrespect    and    ill    treatment"    which    a 
member  of  the  Navy  Board  of  the  Middle  De 
partment  had  received  at  the  hands  of  John 
Barry,  commander  of  the  frigate  "Effingham." 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Octo 
ber  23,  1777. 


no  A  ai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

did  the  kindliest  relations  exist  between 
the  Navy  Boards  and  the  commanders  of 
the  vessels.  Officers  who  but  yesterday 
tramped  the  decks  of  their  owrn  merchant 
men,  giving  commands  but  not  receiving 
them,  chafed  under  the  subordination  that 
their  position  in  the  navy  exacted. 

The  Navy  Boards  made  public  the  reso 
lutions  of  Congress  on  naval  affairs,  copies 
of  which  they  lodged  with  the  prize  agents, 
the  commanders  of  vessels,  and  all  inter 
ested  persons.  They  distributed  among 
the  naval  captains  the  rules  and  regulations 
of  the  navy,  the  sea-books,  and  the  naval 
signals.  The  Boards  acted  in  an  advisory 
capacity  to  the  Marine  Committee,  which 
frequently  called  upon  them  for  informa 
tion  or  opinions;  when  a  revision  of  the 
rules  and  regulations  of  the  navy  was  under 
consideration  their  assistance  in  the  work 
was  requested.  Sometimes  they  volun 
teered  important  suggestions  looking  to  the 
betterment  of  the  navy.  They  communi 
cated  frequently  with  the  Committee,  giv 
ing  in  detail  the  state  of  the  naval  business 
in  their  respective  districts. 

In  the  hiring,  purchase,  and  building  of 
vessels  the  Boards  had  to  do  with  craft  of 
all  sorts,  freight-boats,  fire-ships,  galleys, 
packets,  brigs,  schooners,  sloops,  ships,  fri 
gates,  and  men-of-war.  Measured  by  the 
standards  of  the  time,  the  building  of  one 
of  the  larger  vessels  was  a  work  of  some 


Xarv  of  tlic  American  Revolution  in 

magnitude.  A  notion  of  the  men  and  ma 
terials  requisite  for  such  an  undertaking 
may  be  gained  from  an  estimate,  made 
early  in  1780,  of  the  sundries  needed  to 
complete  the  74-gun  ship  "  America/'  the 
largest  of  the  Continental  vessels  constructed 
during  the  Revolution.  The  construction 
of  this  ship  had  been  begun  at  Portsmouth, 
New  Hampshire,  in  1777.  It  was  computed 
that  one  hundred  and  fifty  workmen  for  an 
average  period  of  eight  months  would  be 
required.  Fifty  carpenters,  twenty  ordi 
nary  laborers,  twenty  caulkers,  ten  riggers, 
ten  sailors,  two  master-builders,  and  an 
uncertain  number  of  blacksmiths,  sail- 
makers,  coopers,  plumbers,  painters,  gla 
ziers,  carvers,  boat-builders,  ship-copperers, 
tinners,  cabinet-makers,  and  tanners  were' 
demanded.  Materials  and  provisions  were 
needed  as  follows:  Seven  hundred  tons  of 
timbers,  one  hundred  casks  of  naval  stores, 
forty  tons  of  iron,  one  thousand  water-casks, 
masts  and  spars  of  all  sorts,  sheets  of  lead, 
train  oil,  and  oakum;  provisions  for  most 
of  the  above  workmen,  and  lastly,  an  indis 
pensable  lubricant  for  all  naval  services  at 
this  time,  "rum,  one  half  pint  per  day,  in 
cluding  extra  hands,  say  for  150  hands,  8 
months,  12  hhds,  1310  gallons."1  In  build 
ing  the  armed  vessels,  the  Boards  were 
greatly  hampered  by  the  difficulty  of  ob- 

1.      Records  and  papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  37,  p.  217. 


H2  Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

taining  artisans,  owing  to  their  being  called 
out  for  military  service,  or  to  their  engaging 
in  privateering.  In  providing  armament 
and  equipment,  they  were  embarrassed  by 
the  inexperience  of  the  colonists  in  casting 
cannon,  and  by  the  obstacles  which  they 
encountered  in  importing  canvas,  cables, 
arms,  and  ammunition. 

For  the  future  use  of  the  fleet  the  Navy 
Boards  collected  in  due  season  provisions 
and  naval  stores.  In  their  work  as  pur 
veyors  for  the  navy  a  knowledge  of  the 
baking  of  bread  and  the  curing  of  meats 
might  not  prove  amiss.  The  kinds  and 
quantities  of  provisions  which  they  bought 
may  be  judged  from  an  estimate  of  the  sup 
plies  that  were  requisite  to  equip  for  -sea 
and  for  a  single  cruise  the  36-gun  frigate 
"  Confederacy."  The  names  and  quantities 
of  the  articles  needed  were  as  follows: 
bread,  35,700  Ibs.;  beef,  15,300  Ibs.;  pork, 
15,300  Ibs.;  flour,  5,100  Ibs.;  potatoes,  10,- 
000  Ibs.;  peas,  80  bus.;  mutton,  2,500  Ibs.; 
butter,  637  Ibs.;  rice,  2,550  Ibs.;  vinegar, 
160  gals.;  and  rum,  2,791  gals.1  The 
Boards'  supplies  of  naval  stores  consisted 
chiefly  of  canvas,  sails,  cordage,  cables,  tar, 
turpentine,  and  ship  chandlery. 

The  commissioners  of  each  district  made 
some  division  of  their  work  among  them 
selves.  For  instance,  the  special  task  of 

1.  Records  and  papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  37,  p.  273. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  113 

Wharton  of  the  Philadelphia  Board  was  the 
superintending  of  the  accounting  and  the 
naval  finances  of  the  Middle  District.  Dur 
ing  1778  Deshon  of  the  Boston  Board 
spent  much  time  in  Connecticut  attending 
to  the  naval  business  in  that  state.  This 
had  to  do  chiefly  with  freeing  the  "Trum- 
bull"  frigate  from  a  sandbar  upon  which 
she  had  grounded.  During  the  same  year 
Vernon  was  for  a  time  at  Providence  en 
deavoring  to  get  to  sea  the  Continental 
vessels  which  the  British  had  blockaded  in 
that  port.  For  a  part  of  the  year  Warren 
alone  attended  to  the  business  of  the 
Board  at  its  headquarters  at  Boston.  On 
August  4,  1778,  Congress  appropriated  $365 
to  each  of  the  commissioners  of  the  Navy 
Board  at  Boston  to  pay  their  traveling  ex 
penses  during  the  past  year,  since  in  the 
right  discharge  of  their  office  they  were 
obliged  "  frequently  to  visit  the  different 
parts  of  their  extensive  district."1 

In  the  extent  of  its  powers  and  in  the 
amount  of  its  business  the  Boston  Board 
exceeded  the  one  at  Philadelphia.2  This 
was  largely  owing  to  the  centering  of  naval 
affairs  in  New  England  after  the  occupa- 
tion  of  Philadelphia  in  September,  1777; 

1.  Journals   of   Continental   Congress,   Au 
gust  4,  1778. 

2.  In  the  transmission  of  foreign  mail  the 
Navy  Board  at  Boston  acted  as  the  agent  of 
the    Committee   of    Foreign    Affairs.      It    both 
purchased  and  hired  packet  boats. 


H4  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

and  to  the  capture  or  destruction  in  that 
year  of  a  large  part  of  the  fleet  to  the 
southward  of  New  England.  After  1776  all 
the  new  vessels  added  in  America  to  the 
navy,  with  the  exception  of  two  or  three, 
were  either  purchased  or  built  in  New  Eng 
land.  The  long  distance  of  the  Marine 
Committee  from  Boston,  with  the  conse 
quent  difficulties  and  delays  in  communi 
cation,  made  it  necessary  for  the  Com 
mittee  to  grant  to  the  Boston  Board  larger 
powers  than  to  the  Philadelphia  Board. 

The  most  important  work  of  a  Naval 
Office  is  the  directing  of  the  movements  of 
the  fleet,  or  in  other  words,  the  determining 
of  the  cruises  of  the  armed  vessels.  This 
power  the  Marine  Committee  jealously 
guarded,  and  was  loathe  to  yield  any  part 
of  it.  The  Committee  was  forced  at  times, 
however,  to  give  to  the  Boston  Board  a 
considerable  discretion.  In  July,  1777,  it 
ordered  the  Board  to  send  out  the  cruisers 
as  fast  as  they  could  be  got  ready,  "  direct 
ing  the  Commanders  to  such  Latitudes  as 
you  shall  think  there  will  be  the  greatest 
chance  of  success  in  intercepting  the  enemy's 
Transports  and  Merchant  Ships";  and  in 
November,  1778,  to  send  the  vessels  out, 
"either  collectively,  or  singly,  as  you  shall 
judge  proper,  using  your  discretion  as  to 
the  time  for  which  their  Cruises  shall  con 
tinue,  and  your  best  judgment  in  directing 
the  commanders  to  such  places  and  on  such 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  115 

stations  as  you  shall  think  will  be  for  the 
general  benefit  of  the  United  States,  and 
to  annoy  and  distress  the  Enemy."1  Such 
general  orders  were  always  subject  to  the 
particular  plans  and  directions  of  the  Com 
mittee,  which  were  by  no  means  few.  The 
Committee  itself  determined  the  service  of 
all  vessels  that  refitted  at  Philadelphia.  As 
a  consequence  the  duties  of  the  Navy  Board 
of  the  Middle  Department  had  to  do  chiefly 
with  the  minor  details  of  administration. 
Turning  now  from  the  work  of  the  Navy 
Boards  to  that  of  the  Marine  Committee, 
one  finds  the  significant  fact  to  be  the  two 
fold  relation  that  the  Committee  bore  to 
the  Continental  Congress.  By  reason  of 
the  union  in  Congress  of  both  legislative 
and  executive  functions,  the  Committee 
was  at  one  and  the  same  time  an  adminis 
trative  organ  of  Congress  charged  with  exe 
cuting  the  business  of  its  Naval  Depart 
ment,  and  its  legislative  committee  on  naval 
affairs.  Naturally,  there  were  at  points  no 
lines  of  demarkation  between  these  two 
functions;  and  it  is  therefore  not  always 
easy,  or  even  possible,  to  determine  in  which 
capacity  the  Committee  is  acting.  The 
CommitteVs  administrative  duties,  par  ex 
cellence,  were  the  enforcing  and  the  carrying 
out  by  means  of  its  agents  of  the  various 


1.  Marine  Committee  Letter  Book  Com 
mittee  to  Navy  Board  at  Boston,  July  11, 
1777;  November  16,  1778. 


u6  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

resolutions  of  Congress  upon  naval  affairs. 
Already  much  light  has  been  thrown  upon 
this  phase  of  the  Committee's  work  in  the 
treatment  of  the  Navy  Boards  and  the 
naval  agents. 

It  was  the  duty  of  the  Marine  Committee 
to  see  that  the  resolutions  on  naval  affairs 
were  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  proper 
persons,  officers,  agents,  and  authorities. 
As  the  head  of  the  Naval  Department,  it 
issued  its  commands  and  orders  to  the  Navy 
Boards,  the  naval  agents,  and  the  command 
ers  of  vessels.  This  wras  done  both  verbally 
and  by  letters.  The  Navy  Board  of  the 
Middle  Department,  the  naval  agents  at 
Philadelphia,  and  often  the  naval  officers 
in  that  port,  conferred  with  the  Committee 
and  received  orders  by  word  of  mouth.  In 
the  prosecution  of  its  work  outside  of  Phil 
adelphia  the  Committee  conducted  a  large 
correspondence,  chiefly  with  the  Navy 
Board  at  Boston,  the  naval  agents  at  Ports 
mouth,  Boston,  New  London,  and  Balti 
more,  and  the  leading  captains  of  the  navy. 
It  addressed  letters  to  the  governors  of 
most  of  the  states  and  to  many  of  the 
local  governmental  authorities;  to  the  Com 
mander-in-chief  of  the  navy,  Washington, 
General  Heath,  General  Schuyler,  the  Com 
missary-General  of  Prisoners,  Commissary- 
General  of  Purchases  of  the  army,  the  mer 
chants  of  Baltimore,  Count  D'Estaing,  the 
Commissioners  in  Paris,  and  most  of  the  cap- 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  117 

tains  of  the  navy.  This  list  of  correspon 
dents  well  represents  the  range  of  the  busi 
ness  of  the  Committee. 

Through  its  recommendations  to  Con 
gress  the  Marine  Committee  virtually  se 
lected  almost  all  the  captains  of  the  navy 
and  of  the  marine  corps,  many  lieutenants 
of  both  services,  as  a  rule  the  commission 
ers  of  the  navy,  the  prize  agents,  and  the 
advocates  for  the  trying  of  maritime  causes. 
Appointments  to  these  offices  were  rarely 
made  by  Congress  contrary  to  the  recom 
mendations  of  the  Committee,  or  on  its  own 
initiative  independent  of  the  Committee. 
A  few  captains  and  lieutenants  of  the  navy 
were  appointed  by  representatives  of  the 
United  States  residing  abroad. 

As  is  well  known,  all  executive  offices  are 
called  upon  to  establish  certain  forms,  rules, 
and  regulations  for  the  guidance  and  gov 
ernment  of  their  agents.  Of  this  character 
was  the  fixing  by  the  Marine  Committee  of 
the  naval  signals,  the  forms  for  sea-books, 
and  the  proper  uniforms  for  the  naval  offi 
cers.  The  Committee's  regulations  on  uni 
forms  were  dated  September  5,  1776.  For 
captains  they  prescribed  a  blue  coat  "with 
red  lappels,  slash  cuff,  stand-up  collar,  flat 
yellow  buttons,  blue  britches,  red  waistcoat 
with  narrow  lace."  The  uniform  of  the  offi 
cers  of  the  marines  was  equally  resplendent 
in  colors.  It  included  a  green  coat,  with 
white  cuffs,  a  silver  epaulet  on  the  shoulder, 


n8  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

white  waistcoat  and  breeches  edged  with 
green,  and  black  gaiters  and  garters.  Green 
was  the  distinctive  color  of  the  marines. 
The  privates  were  to  display  this  badge  in 
the  form  of  green  shirts,  "if  they  can  be  pro 
cured."1  Not  enough  information  is  acces 
sible  to  the  writer  to  determine  what  influ 
ence  the  regulations  prescribing  the  uniform 
of  British  officers  had  on  those  adopted  by 
the  Marine  Committee.  Both  required  in 
the  uniform  of  captains,  blue  coats,  stand- 
ing-up  collars,  and  flat  buttons;  neither  re 
quired  epaulets,  the  wearing  of  which,  as  is 
well  known,  originated  in  France.2  It  is 
probable  that  the  prescribed  uniform  was 
little  worn  by  the  Continental  naval  officers. 
Grim  necessity  forced  each  officer  to  ran 
sack  whatever  wardrobe  Providence  offered, 
and  it  is  somewhat  inaccurate  to  call  their 
miscellaneous  garbs  "uniforms." 

As  the  Naval  Office  at  Philadelphia  de 
veloped,  letters,  memorials,  and  petitions 
poured  in  upon  it  in  increasing  numbers. 
Many  of  these  communications  were  ad 
dressed  to  the  President  of  Congress,  were 
read  in  Congress,  and  were  formally  referred 
to  the  Marine  Committee  to  be  acted  or 
reported  upon.  It  was  only  infrequently 
that  Congress  offered  any  suggestions  as  to 

1.  Sherburne,  Life  of  John  Paul  Jones,  ed. 
1851,   30.      Copies  of  the  regulations  on  uni 
forms  will  be  found  in  John  Paul  Jones  manu 
scripts,  Library  of  Congress. 

2.  Clowes,  Royal  Navy,  III,  347-50 ;  IV,  182. 


Nazy  of  the  American  Revolution  119 

their  proper  disposition.  These  complaints 
and  requests  were  of  a  varied  character, 
and  came  from  many  sources;  not  a  few 
originated  with  that  obsequious  crowd, 
with  axes  to  grind,  that  always  attends  upon 
official  bodies.  The  wide  range  of  these 
communications  may  be  judged  from  the 
following  subjects  selected  at  random: 

New  Hampshire  and  Massachusetts  re 
quest  that  the  frigates  building  in  those 
states  be  ordered  to  defend  the  New  Eng 
land  coast.1  Governor  Livingston  of  New 
Jersey  asks  for  a  naval  office  for  a  relative, 
Musco  Livingston.2  Gerard,  the  minister 
of  France  to  the  United  States,  wishes  to 
know  "the  opinion  of  Congress  respecting 
his  offering  a  premium  to  the  owners  of  pri 
vateers  that  shall  intercept  masts  and  spars 
belonging  to  the  enemy,  coming  from  Hali 
fax  to  New  York  and  Rhode  Island."3 
John  Macpherson  asserts  that  the  position 
of  commander-in-chief  in  the  navy  was  prom 
ised  to  him  by  Messrs.  Randolph,  Hop 
kins,  and  Rutledge,  to  whom  he  communi 
cated  an  important  secret.4  An  affront  has 
been  offered  several  French  captains  in  Bos 
ton  by  the  commander  of  the  Continental 
frigate  "  Warren."5  Twelve  lieutenants 

1.  Force,  American  Archives,  5th,  II,  315. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Sep 
tember,  17,  1779. 

3.  Ibid.,  December  7,  1778. 

4.  Ibid.,  July  11,  1776. 

5.  Ibid.,  June  16,  1778. 


I2O  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

who  had  been  dismissed  from  the  navy  for 
combining  in  order  to  extort  an  increase  of 
pay,  ask  to  be  reinstated.1  The  ambassa 
dor  of  Naples  at  the  Court  of  France,  whose 
king  has  opened  his  ports  to  the  American 
vessels,  wishes  "to  know  the  colours  of  the 
flag,  and  form  of  the  sea-papers  of  the  United 
States."2  Captain  Biddle  writes  concern 
ing  the  cruel  treatment  inflicted  by  Lord 
Howe  upon  Lieutenant  Josiah  of  the  Conti 
nental  navy.3  Captain  Skimmer  has  been 
killed  in  an  action  with  the  "Montague," 
and  has  left  eleven  children,  nine  of  whom 
are  unable  to  earn  a  livelihood.  His  widow 
asks  for  a  pension.4 

The  Marine  Committee  made  frequent  re 
ports  to  Congress,  both  in  response  to  pre 
vious  orders  therefrom,  and  of  its  own  ac 
cord  in  the  course  of  its  business.  Occa 
sionally  parts  of  its  reports  were  recommit 
ted  by  Congress  to  a  limited  number  of  the 
Committee's  members,  doubtless  for  the 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  July 
23,  24,  1777. 

2.  Ibid.,  February  24,  1779. 

3.  Ibid.,  August  7,  1776. 

4.  Ibid.,    September    14,    23,     1778.      The 
Marine     Committee     reported     and     Congress 
agreed  that  "the  eastern  navy  board  be  direct 
ed  to  supply  400  dollars  annually,  in  quarterly 
payments,  for  the  support  of  Captain  Skimmer's 
widow  and  nine  youngest  children,  and  that 
this  provision  be  continued  three  years. "    This 
is   the   first  instance   of  the   granting  by   the 
United  States  of  a  pension  to  the  family  of  a 
naval  officer  upon  his  death. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  121 

purpose  of  obtaining  prompt  and  expert 
action.  The  Committee  sometimes  as 
signed  special  business  to  sub-committees, 
or  to  single  members.  The  subjects  which 
the  Committee  considered,  discussed,  and 
reported  upon  ran  the  whole  gamut  of  na 
val  activities  and  interests.  The  substance 
of  many  of  its  reports  may  be  found  in  the 
Journals  of  the  Continental  Congress  for  the 
years  1776,  1777,  1778,  and  1779.  During 
this  period  the  Marine  Committee  prepared 
and  reported  the  larger  part  of  the  naval 
legislation  of  Congress.  It  is  true  that  spe 
cial  committees  contributed  something  to 
this  work,  but  these  were  composed  in  part 
of  members  of  the  Marine  Committee.  Con 
gress,  as  a  body,  originated  little,  although 
occasionally  it  was  moved  to  the  passage  of 
resolutions  on  naval  affairs  by  some  real  or 
supposed  emergency,  the  importunities  of 
the  self-seeking,  or  the  whims  of  individual 
members.  It  of  course  amended  the  re 
ports  of  its  committees. 

The  principal  legislation  of  Congress  re 
lating  to  the  navy  which  was  passed  during 
the  incumbency  of  the  Marine  Committee 
will  now  be  noted.  No  attempt  will  be 
made  to  separate  those  provisions  that  were 
the  special  work  of  the  Marine  Committee 
from  the  whole  legislative  output. 

During  1776  and  1777  Congress  author 
ized  important  naval  increases.  It  directed 
the  Marine  Committee  in  March  and  April, 


122  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

1776,  to  purchase  "the  armed  vessel  now  in 
the  river  Delaware"  and  the  ship  "Molly/' 
to  fit  out  two  armed  cutters,  and  to  build 
two  galleys  "capable  of  carrying  two  36  or 
42  pounders."1  On  November  20,  1776, 
Congress  resolved  to  build  immediately, 
one  ship,  74,  in  New  Hampshire;  two  ships, 
74  and  36,  in  Massachusetts;  one  ship,  74, 
a  brig,  18,  and  a  packet  boat,  in  Pennsyl 
vania;  two  frigates,  36  each,  in  Virginia; 
and  two  frigates,  36  each,  in  Maryland.2 
Later,  the  size  and  armament  of  some  of 
these  vessels  were  reduced  by  the  Marine 
Committee,  and  some  of  them  were 
never  completed.  Only  three  of  these 
ten  vessels  were  armed,  manned,  and 
sent  to  sea  as  a  part  of  the  forces 
of  the  Continental  navy.  They  were 
the  "Alliance,"  36,  the  "General  Gates/' 
18,  both  built  in  Massachusetts,  and  the 
"Saratoga,"  16,  built  in  Pennsylvania. 
The  74-gun  ship  "America,"  constructed  at 
Portsmouth,  New  Hampshire,  was  not 
launched  until  shortly  before  the  Revolu 
tion  ended.  On  January  23,  1777,  Congress 
ordered  the  construction  of  two  frigates,  36 
and  28,  in  Connecticut.  These  two* ships 
were  named  respectively  the  "Confederacy" 
and  "Bourbon."  On  March  15,  1777,  the 
Marine  Committee  was  ordered  to  purchase 


1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  March 
13,  March  28,  April  3,  April  14,  1776. 

2.  Ibid.,  November  20,  1776. 


Xai'\  of  the  American  Revolution  123 

three  ships.1  Congress  gave  directions 
for  other  naval  increases,  but  they  were  not 
fully  carried  out.  In  July,  1777,  owing  to 
the  "extravagant  prices  now  demanded 
for  all  kinds  of  materials  used  in  ship-build 
ing,  and  the  enormous  wages  required  by 
tradesmen  and  labourers,"  Congress  em 
powered  the  Committee  to  stop  the  building 
of  such  of  the  Continental  vessels  as  they 
should  judge  proper.2 

During  1776  many  important  appoint 
ments  and  promotions  in  the  navy  and  the 
marine  corps  were  made  by  the  Marine  Com 
mittee,  and  confirmed  by  Congress.  Sam 
uel  Nichols  was  placed  at  the  head  of  the 
marines,  with  the  rank  of  major.  Twenty 
captains  of  the  navy  were  appointed.  Four 
of  these  had  been  appointed  lieutenants  on 
December  22,  1775,  and  were  promoted, 
but  the  remaining  sixteen  were  new  ap 
pointees.  John  Manly  was  taken  from 
Washington's  fleet.  Nicholas  Biddle,  Thom 
as  Read,  Charles  Alexander,  and  James  Josi- 
ah  had  seen  service  in  the  Pennsylvania 
navy;  and  James  Nicholson  in  the  Maryland 
navy.  During  this  year  there  was  a  great 
scramble  to  obtain  offices  on  board  the  thir 
teen  frigates,  and  amid  the  rivalries  of  poli 
tics,  it  is  not  surprising  that  some  candi 
dates  were  successful  that,  unfortunately 

1.      Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Janu 
ary  23,  March  15,  1777. 
2       Ibid.,  July  25,  1777. 


124  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

for  the  navy,  had  tasted  little  salt  water.1 
In  military  services  questions  of  promo 
tion  and  rank  are  perennial  sources  of 
heartburning  and  jealousy.  The  advancing 
of  an  officer  on  any  other  principle  than 
that  of  seniority  in  service  rarely  fails  to 
arouse  feelings  of  injustice  and  suspicions 
of  partiality,  which  are  only  too  often  war 
ranted.  The  discontent  and  insubordi 
nation  that  Mich  a  promotion  incites  must 
always  be  weighed  against  its  beneficial  re 
sults.  When,  on  October  10,  1,776,  Con 
gress,  in  determining  the  rank  of  twenty- 
four  captains  and  two  lieutenants,  disregard 
ed  the  dates  of  their  commissions  and  appoint 
ments,  it  was  unable  to  defend  its  act  on  the 
usual,  and  under  some  circumstances,  tenable 
ground  of  the  conspicuous  services,  marked 
talents,  and  signal  professional  skill  of  those 
favored.  Once  more  Southern  influences  pre 
vailed,  and  James  Nicholson,  of  Maryland, 
commander  of  the  frigate  "Virginia,"  was 
made  the  senior  captain  of  the  navy.  This 
distinguishing  of  Nicholson,  who  was  ap 
pointed  captain  on  June  6,  1776,  worked 


1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  June 
25,  October  10,  1776;  Scribner's  Magazine, 
XXIV,  29,  Mahan,  John  Paul  Jones  in  the 
Revolution,  quotes  a  member  of  Congress  writ 
ing  to  Jones  probably  in  the  fall  of  1776 :  ' '  You 
would  be  surprised  to  hear  what  a  vast  num 
ber  of  applications  are  continually  making  for 
officers  of  the  new  frigates,  especially  for  the 
command. " 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  125 

a  hardship  to  the  officers,  and  especially  to 
the  four  captains,  appointed  on  December 
22,  1775.  John  Paul  Jones,  who  stood  fifth 
in  rank  in  the  list  of  December  22,  and  now 
found  himself  eighteenth,  smarted  under 
the  injustice  which  was  done  him.1  It  is 
noteworthy  that  from  March,  1777,  when 
Esek  Hopkins  was  suspended  from  his  po 
sition  of  commander-in-chief  of  the  fleet, 
until  the  end  of  the  Revolution,  the  head  of 
the  Continental  army  and  the  ranking  offi 
cer  of  the  navy  came  from  adjoining 
Southern  states.2 

On  November   15,    1776,  Congress   fixed 


1.  Jones  made  a  copy  of  the  list  of  cap 
tains  of  the  navy  arranged  in  accordance  with 
their  respective   ranks,   upon   which   copy   he 
commented:     "Whereby  No.  18  is  superseded 

by 13  [men] altho    their    superior 

Merits  and  Abilities  are  at  best  Presumptive, 
and  not  one  of  them  was  in  the  service  the 
7th  day  of  December,  1775,  when  No.  18  was 
appointed  Senior    Lieut  of  the  Navy." — Jones 
Manuscripts,  Library  of  Congress. 

2.  Nicholson,  while  at  times  displaying  con 
spicuous   bravery,    was   less   fortunate   in    his 
naval  service  than  Hopkins.      Two  frigates  un 
der  his  command  were  at  different  times  cap 
tured  by  the  enemy.      On  May  1,   1777,  Con 
gress  suspended  him  from  his  command,  "until 
he  shall  have  made  such  satisfaction  as  shall 
be  accepted  by  the  executive  powers  of  the 
state    of    Maryland,  for  the  disrespectful  and 
contemptuous   letter    written   by   him   to   the 
governor  of  that  state/' — Journals  of  Continen- 
nental  Congress,  May  1,  1777.. 


126  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

the  relative  rank  of  army  and  naval  officers 
as  follows:1 

Admiral,  with  General. 

Vice-Admiral,    with    Lieutenant-General. 

Rear- Admiral,  with  Major-General. 

Commodore,  with  Brigadier-General. 

Captain  of  a  ship  of  40  guns  and  up 
wards,  with  Colonel. 

Captain  of  a  ship  of  20  to  40  guns,  with 
Lieutenant-Colonel. 

Captain  of  a  ship  of  10  to  20  guns,  with 
Major. 

Lieutenant  of  the  navy,  with  Captain. 

In  this  legislation  on  rank  once  more  the 
influence  of  British  models  is  apparent. 
The  Committee  was  evidently  building  for 
the  future,  for  the  four  higher  ranks  were 
not  established  at  this  time,  nor  during  the 
Revolution.  The  present  relative  rank  of 
army  and  naval  officers  is  based  on  the 
above  table. 

On  March  23,  1776,  Congress  passed  most 
important  resolutions  supplementary  to 
those  of  November  25,  1775,  concerning  cap 
tures  and  the  shares  of  prizes.  The  resolu 
tions  of  November  25  legalized  the  capture 
of  the  enemy's  vessels  of  war  and  trans 
ports.  The  new  resolutions  permitted  for 
the  first  time  the  capture  of  all  ships  and 
cargoes,  "belonging  to  any  inhabitant,  or 
inhabitants  of  Great  Britain,  taken  on  the 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  No 
vember  15,  1776. 


Nary  of  the  American  Revolution   127 

high  seas,  or  between  high  and  low  water 
mark,"  by  American  privateers,  vessels  of 
the  Continental  navy,  or  ships  fitted  out  by 
any  of  the  colonies.  In  brief,  the  new 
resolutions  legalized  reprisals  on  British 
commerce.  In  the  case  of  Continental  ves 
sels,  one-third  of  the  prize  went  to  the  offi 
cers  and  crew;  in  the  case  of  privateers,  the 
whole  of  the  prize  fell  to  the  owners  and  cap 
tors.  Each  colony  was  permitted  to  fix  the 
shares  of  the  proceeds  of  merchantmen  cap 
tured  by  its  own  ships  of  war.1  On  Octo 
ber  30,  1776,  the  share  of  prizes  taken  by 
vessels  of  the  Continental  navy  was  in 
creased  to  one-half  of  merchantmen,  trans 
ports,  and  store  ships;  and  to  the  whole  of 
ships  of  war  and  privateers.2 

On  April  2,  1776,  Congress  agreed  to  a 
form  of  commission  for  privateers.  On 
the  next  day  it  resolved  to  send  blank  com 
missions,  signed  by  the  President  of  Con 
gress,  to  the  legislatures,  provincial  con 
gresses,  and  committees  of  safety  of  the 
United  Colonies.  These  were  to  be  filled 
out  and  delivered  to  privateersmen.  Blank 
bonds,  which  were  to  be  executed  by  the 
owners  or  masters  of  privateers,  were  also 
sent.  These  bonds,  which  prescribed  a  pen 
alty  of  five  or  ten  thousand  dollars,  accord 
ing  to  the  size  of  the  ship,  were  intended  to 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  March 
23,  1776. 

2.  Ibid.,  October  30,  1776. 


128  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

discourage  or  prevent  misconduct  and  un 
warrantable  acts  on  the  part  of  officers  and 
crews.  Congress  also  drafted  a  form  of  in 
structions  to  the  commanders  of  priva 
teers.1 

Congress  on  November  15,  1776,  estab 
lished  a  new  pay-table.  Officers  were  now 
divided  into  three  classes,  those  serving  on 
board  of  vessels  of  20  guns  and  upwards, 
vessels  of  10  to  20  guns,  and  vessels  below 
10  guns.  The  vessels  of  the  first  two 
classes  were  commanded  by  captains,  and 
of  the  third  class  by  lieutenants.  The  pay 
of  the  higher  officers,  which  the  new  table 
generally  raised,  varied  for  each  of  the 
three  classes,  the  commanding  officers  of 
which  received,  respectively,  $60,  $48,  and 
$30  a  month.  Seamen  were  now  paid  a 
monthly  wage  of  $8.  The  pay  of  officers 
below  the  captain  ranged  from  $30  to  $8.34 
a  month.  A  bounty  of  $20  for  every  cannon 
and  $8  for  every  seaman  captured  on  board 
a  British  ship  of  war  was  now  voted.2  On 
July  25,  1777,  the  "subsistence"  of  officers 
while  in  foreign  or  domestic  ports  was 
fixed.3  On  January  19,  1778,  Congress  re 
solved  that  officers  not  in  actual  service 
should  be  allowed  pay,  but  not  rations. 
While  prisoners  of  war,  their  allowance 


1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  April 
2,  April  3,  1776. 

2.  Ibid.,  November  15,  1776. 

3.  Ibid.,  July  25,  1777. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  129 

for  rations  was  to  be  diminished  by  the 
value  of  the  supplies  which  they  received 
from  the  enemy.1  Pursers  for  vessels  of 
16  guns  and  upwards  were  authorized  on 
November  14,  1778. 2 

Additional  interest  attaches  to  the  initial 
legislation  on  pensions  of  the  American  gov 
ernment  because  of  the  unprecedented  liber 
ality  which  now  marks  its  treatment  of  its 
veterans.  The  first  legislation  on  naval 
pensions  dates  from  the  adoption  by  Con 
gress  on  November  28,  1775,  of  a  form  of 
naval  contract  according  to  which  certain 
bounties  were  granted  officers,  seamen,  and 
marines  disabled  from  earning  a  livelihood.3 
These  bounties  were  derived  from  the 
proceeds  of  prizes  captured  by  the  aid  of 
the  beneficiaries.  A  more  typical  pension 
law  was  passed  on  August  26,  1776. 4  It 
had,  however,  a  vital  defect  in  that  it  was 
left  to  the  enforcement  of  the  individual 
states.  According  to  its  provisions  every 
naval  officer,  seaman,  or  marine,  "belonging 
to  the  United  States  of  America,  who  shall 
lose  a  limb  in  any  engagement  in  which  no 
prize  shall  be  taken,  or  be  therein  otherwise 
so  disabled  as  to  be  rendered  incapable  of 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Janu 
ary  19,  March  20,  1778. 

2.  Ibid.,  November  14,  1778. 

3.  See  Chapter  I,  page  46. 

4.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  August 
26,  1776.      This  law  applied  to  both  the  army 
and  the  navy. 


130  Nai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

getting  a  livelihood,  shall  receive  during 
his  life,  or  the  continuance  of  such  disability, 
one  half  of  his  monthly  pay."  When  a 
prize  was  captured  at  the  time  the  disabil 
ity  was  contracted,  the  disabled  person's 
share  of  prize  money  was  considered  as  a  part 
of  his  half-pay.  If  the  disabled  person  was 
rendered  incapable  of  serving  in  the  navy, 
although  not  totally  disabled  from  earning 
a  livelihood,  he  received  a  monthly  sum, 
judged  to  be  adequate  by  the  legislature  of 
the  state  in  which  he  resided.  Each  state 
was  to  determine  which  of  its  citizens  were 
entitled  to  a  pension  under  this  law,  to  pay 
such  persons  their  half-pay  or  allowance,  and 
to  make  a  quarterly  report  of  its  work  to  the 
secretary  of  Congress.  The  distinguishing 
characteristic  of  the  law  lay  in  its  depend 
ence  on  the  states  for  its  enforcement.  As 
might  be  expected,  it  was  very  imperfectly 
carried  out. 

On  September  25,  1778,  Congress  extend 
ed  the  advantages  of  the  law  to  all  persons 
whose  disabilities  were  acquired  previous 
to  August  26,  1776.1  It  is  to  be  carefully 
noted  that  this  was  a  pension  for  disabil 
ities  and  not  for  service — a  fundamental 
classification  in  pension  law.  An  agita 
tion  for  a  service  pension  for  life  for  the  of 
ficers  of  the  army  was  made  in  and  out  of 
Congress  for  a  long  time,  until  in  1780  it 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Sep 
tember  25,  1778. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  131 

was  at  last  successful.1  Such  emoluments 
were  not  at  this  time  granted  to  naval  offi 
cers  ;  it  was  probably  argued  that  their  shar 
ing  in  captured  prizes  offset  the  pensions  of 
the  army  officers.  Then,  too,  the  army  had 
ways  of  gaining  the  attention  of  Congress 
that  the  weak  and  insignificant  navy  did 
not  possess. 

Few  more  important  duties  fall  to  naval 
offices  than  the  enforcing  of  discipline  in  the 
navy  by  means  of  naval  courts.  Adams's 
rules  of  November  28,  1775,  made  provision 
for  holding  courts-martial,  but  not  courts  of 
enquiry,  which  are  a  sort  of  grand  jury  or 
inquest.  They  also  provided  that  courts- 
martial  should  consist  of  at  least  six  naval 
officers,  with  six  officers  of  marines,  if  so 
many  of  the  latter  were  convenient  to  the 
court.2  The  Committee  and  Navy  Boards 
at  times  found  it  impossible  to  assemble  so 
many  officers.  No  definite  procedure  in 
investigating  the  loss  of  vessels  was 
prescribed  by  Adams's  rules.  Additional 
legislation  was  therefore  demanded.  On 
May  6,  1778,  Congress  adopted  new  reg 
ulations  on  naval  courts,  which  were  to  be 
operative  for  one  year.3  They  provided 
that,  when  a  vessel  of  war  was  lost  by  cap- 

1.  Harvard    Historical    Studies,   X,    L.    C. 
Hatch,    Administration   of   American   Revolu 
tionary  Army,  Chapter  V,  Pay  and  Half-pay. 

2.  See  Chapter  I,  page  45. 

3.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,   May 
6,  1778. 


132  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

ture  or  otherwise,  a  court  of  enquiry  should 
be  held,  ''consisting  of  that  navy  board 
which  shall,  by  the  marine  committee  of 
Congress,  be  directed  to  proceed  therein, 
or  any  three  persons  that  such  navy  board 
may  appoint/'  If  the  court  of  enquiry 
found  that  the  loss  of  the  vessel  was  caused 
by  the  negligence  or  malconduct  of  any  com 
missioned  officer,  the  Navy  Board  might 
suspend  such  officer  pending  his  trial  by  a 
court-martial,  which,  in  the  event  that  six 
naval  officers  could  not  be  assembled,  was 
to  consist  of  five  men  appointed  by  the 
Navy  Board.  The  permitting  of  civilians 
to  sit  upon  naval  courts  is  the  salient  fea 
ture  of  these  new  resolutions,  and  is  an 
anomaly  in  naval  judicature.  They  also 
provided  that  in  cases  where  one  or  more 
vessels  out  of  a  fleet  were  lost  by  capture  or 
otherwise,  the  commanders  of  the  escaping 
vessels  were  to  be  tried  by  a  similar  proced 
ure.  If  a  court-martial  found  that  the  loss 
of  a  vessel  was  caused  by  the  cowardice  or 
treachery  of  the  commanding  officer,  it  was 
directed  to  inflict  the  death  penalty.  On 
August  19,  1778,  the  procedure  established 
on  May  6  was  extended  to  "all  offences  and 
misdemeanors  in  the  marine  department."1 
The  proceedings  of  courts-martial  were  for 
warded  to  the  Marine  Committee,  which 
laid  them,  together  with  its  recommenda- 

1       Journals   of   Continental   Congress,   Au 
gust  19,  1778. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  133 

lions  thereupon,  before  Congress  for  final 
action. 

During  the  incumbency  of  the  Marine 
Committee  a  number  of  interesting  and  im 
portant  naval  trials  were  held.  Captain 
Thomas  Thompson  in  1778  and  Captain 
Dudley  Saltonstall  in  1779  were  broken  by 
<?ourts-martial.  Other  captains  who  lost 
their  vessels  were  tried,  but  escaped  so  se 
vere  a  punishment.  The  cases  growing 
out  of  Commodore  Hopkins's  expedition  to 
New  Providence,  his  engagement  with  the 
"Glasgow,"  and  the  immediately  succeed 
ing  events  of  his  fleet  in  the  spring  of  1776 
deserve  more  extended  notice.  During  the 
summer  of  1776  the  Marine  Committee  or 
dered  Commodore  Hopkins  and  Captains 
Dudley  Saltonstall  and  Abraham  Whipple 
to  leave  the  fleet,  which  was  then  stationed 
in  Rhode  Island,  and  to  come  to  Philadel 
phia  for  trial.  After  calling  before  it  the 
inferior  officers  of  the  "Alfred"  and  "Co 
lumbus,"  and  hearing  their  complaints 
against  the  two  captains,  the  Committee 
reported  to  Congress  on  July  11  that  the 
charge  against  Captain  Saltonstall  was  not 
well  founded,  and  that  the  charge  against 
Captain  Whipple  "amounts  to  nothing  more 
than  a  rough,  indelicate  mode  of  behaviour 
to  his  marine  officers."  Cjongress  ordered 
the  two  captains  to  repair  to  their  com 
mands,  and  recommended  Captain  Whipple 


134  Navy^of  the  American  Revolution 

"to  cultivate  harmony  with  his  officers."1 
Commodore  Hopkins  was  not  to  get  off  so 
easily.  His  whole  conduct  since  he  left 
Philadelphia  early  in  January,  1776,  was  in 
vestigated.  The  principal  charge  against 
him  was  the  disobeying  of  the  instructions 
of  the  Naval  Committee  of  January  5,  1776, 
to  attack  the  forces  of  the  enemy  in  the  re 
gion  of  Virginia  and  the  Carolinas.  Hop 
kins  based  his  defence  on  the  statement 
that  the  enemy  in  that  region  had  become 
too  strong  to  attack  by  the  time  his  fleet 
had  sailed  on  February  17,  and  also  on  a  cer 
tain  clause  in  his  instructions  granting  him 
discretionary  powers.2  After  the  Marine 
Committee  had  investigated  the  case,  and 
reported  upon  it,  Congress,  on  August  12, 
took  into  consideration  the  "instructions 
given  to  Commodore  Hopkins,  his  examina 
tion  and  answers  to  the  Marine  Committee, 
and  the  report  of  the  Marine  Committee 
thereupon;  also,  the  farther  defence  by  him 
made,  and  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses." 
On  the  15th,  Congress  came  to  the  resolu 
tion:  "That  the  said  commodore  Hopkins, 
during  his  cruise  to  the  southward,  did  not 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  July 
11,  1776. 

2.  Edward   Field's    Esek  Hopkins,  154-56, 
quotes  words  of   Hopkins  in  his  own  defence. 
Washington  feared  the  plan  of  the  Naval  Com 
mittee  would  fail  as  the  enemy  must  know  it, 
so  long  had  the  fleet  been  fitting  for  sea. — Ford, 
Writings  of  Washington,  III,  319. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  135 

pay  due  regard  to  the  tenor  of  his  instruc 
tions  and,  that  his  reasons 

for  not  going  from  Providence  immediately 
to  the  Carolinas,  are  by  no  means  satisfac 
tory."  The  next  day  Congress  resolved, 
"that  the  said  conduct  of  commodore  Hop 
kins  deserves  the  censure  of  this  house,  and 
this -house  does  accordingly  censure  him."1 

This  action  seems  more  severe  than  the 
facts  justify.  John  Adams,  who  defended 
Hopkins,  had  with  difficulty  prevented  Con 
gress  from  cashiering  the  Commodore.  Ac 
cording  to  Adams's  view,  Hopkins  was 
"pursued  and  persecuted  by  that  anti-New- 
England  spirit  which  haunted  Congress  in 
many  other  of  their  proceedings,  as  well  as 
in  this  case."2  The  action  of  Congress  may 
be  interpreted  differently.  Hopkins  had 
not  met  the  expectations  of  Congress  or  the 
Marine  Committee.  As  the  head  of  the 
fleet,  blame  naturally  fell  upon  him,  whether 
he  deserved  it  or  not.  He  had  his  short 
comings  as  a  naval  officer,  and  failure  mag 
nified  them.  By  placing  the  blame  upon 
him,  the  skirts  of  Congress,  of  the  Marine 
Committee,  and  of  the  other  naval  officers 
were  cleared,  and  the  hopes  of  a  few  self-in 
terested  men  were  brightened. 

Commodore  Hopkins's  failure  to  carry 
out  the  plans  of  the  Marine  Committee  dur- 


1.  Journals   of    Continental   Congress,    Au 
gust  12,  15,  and  16,  1776. 

2.  Quoted  in  Field's  Esek  Hopkins,  158. 


136  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

ing  the  fall  of  1776,  together  with  the  par 
tial  inaction  of  the  fleet  under  his  command, 
increased  his  disfavor  with  Congress  and  the 
Marine  Committee.  His  praiseworthy  en 
deavors  to  man  and  prepare  his  fleet  for  sea 
won  for  him  the  enmity  of  the  owners  of  pri 
vateers  at  Providence,  for  his  success  would 
mean  the  taking  of  men  and  materials  sorely 
needed  by  the  privateersmen.  Hopkins's 
intemperate  language,  lack  of  tact,  and  na 
val  misfortunes  bred  a  spirit  of  discontent, 
and  gave  an  excuse  for  insubordination 
among  his  inferior  officers.  Encouraged 
by  the  discontented  privateersmen  of  Prov 
idence,  ten  of  the  inferior  officers  of  the 
"Warren,"  the  Commodore's  flagship,  signed 
a  petition  and  certain  letters  containing 
complaints  and  charges  against  Hopkins, 
and  sent  their  documents  to  the  Marine 
Committee.  They  were  taken  to  Philadel 
phia  by  the  chief  "conspirator,"  Captain 
John  Grannis  of  the  marines.  These  docu 
ments  asserted  that  Hopkins  had  called 
the  members  of  the  Marine  Committee  and 
of  Congress  "  ignorant  fellows — lawyers, 
clerks — persons  who  don't  know  how  to  gov 
ern  men;"  that  he  was  "remarkably  addict 
ed  to  profane  swearing;"  that  he  had  "treat 
ed  prisoners  in  a  most  inhuman  and  barbar 
ous  manner;"  that  he  was  a  "hindrance  to 
the  proper  manning  of  the  fleet;"  and  that 
"his  conversation  is  at  times  so  wild  and  or 
ders  so  unsteady  that  I  have  sometimes 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  137 

thought  he  was  not  in  his  right  mind."  Be 
sides  these  accusations,  there  were  a  few 
others  of  even  less  substantial  character.1 

On  March  25,  1777,  the  Marine  Commit 
tee  laid  before  Congress  the  complaints  and 
charges  against  Commodore  Hopkins,  and 
•on  the  next  day  Congress  took  them  into 
consideration;  whereupon  it  resolved  that 
"Esek  Hopkins  be  immediately,  and  he  is 
hereby,  suspended  from  his  command  in  the 
American  navy."2  Hopkins  remained  sus 
pended  until  January  2,  1778.  The  Jour 
nals  of  Congress  for  this  date  contain  the 
following  entry:  "Congress  having  no  far 
ther  occasion  for  the  service  of  Esek  Hop 
kins,  esq.  who,  on  the  22nd  of  December, 
1775,  was  appointed  commander  in  chief  of 
the  fleet  fitted  out  by  the  naval  committee, 
Resolved,  That  the  said  Esek  Hopkins,  esq. 
be  dismissed  from  the  service  of  the  United 
States."3 

Hopkins's  suspension  and  removal  did  not 
in  any  way  improve  the  navy.  Indeed,  it 
was  far  less  fortunate  in  1777,  than  it  had 
been  in  1776.  That  its  chief  officer 
should  have  been  suspended  without 
a  hearing,  on  flimsy  charges,  offered  by  a 
small  number  of  inferior  officers  whose  leader 

1.  Edward  Field's  Esek  Hopkins,   Chapter 
VI,  Conspiracy  and  Dismissal,  contains  many 
original  documents. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  March 
25,  March  26,  1777. 

3.  Ibid.,  January  2,  1778. 


138  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

was  guilty  of  insubordination,  convicts  Con 
gress  of  acting  with  undue  haste  and  of  do 
ing  a  possible  injustice,  and  arouses  the  sus 
picion  that  it  was  not  actuated  wholly  by  a 
calm  and  unbiased  judgment.  The  word 
ing  of  Hopkins's  dismissal  seems  needlessly 
curt,  and  harsh.  Since  Hopkins  had  lost 
the  confidence  of  Congress,  the  Marine 
Committee,  and  many  of  his  countrymen, 
his  removal  from  the  office  of  commander- 
in-chief  to  that  of  a  captain  might  have 
been  justified. 

On  January  13,  1778,  Hopkins  brought  a 
suit  for  libel  against  the  ten  officers  con 
cerned  in  the  "conspiracy,"  fixing  his  dam 
ages  at  £10,000.  On  July  30  Congress 
passed  a  resolution  for  defraying  the  rea 
sonable  expenses  of  the  ten  officers  in  de 
fending  their  suit.1  The  case  was  tried  be 
fore  a  jury  in  the  Inferior  Court  of  Common 
Pleas  of  Rhode  Island.  The  decision  was 
unfavorable  to  Hopkins,  as  the  jury  brought 
in  a  verdict  for  "the  defendants  and  their 
costs."  The  victory  of  the  opposition  to 
the  Commodore  was  complete.  He  had  not, 
however,  lost  the  confidence  of  his  fellow 
townsmen.  He  served  in  the  General  As 
sembly  of  his  state,  representing  North 
Providence  from  1777  until  1786,  and  he 
was  from  1777  until  the  end  of  the  Revolu 
tion  a  member  of  the  Rhode  Island  Council 


1.     Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  July 
30,  1778. 


Xavy  of  the  American  Revolution  139 

of  War.1  No  one  who  knew  Hopkins  inti 
mately  ever  doubted  his  courage,  his  patriot 
ism,  or  his  honesty  of  purpose. 

The  arrival  off  the  Delaware  Capes,  on 
July  8,  1778,  of  twelve  sail  of  the  line  and 
four  frigates  under  the  command  of  Count 
D'Estaing,  Vice-Admiral  of  France,  threw 
additional  work  upon  the  Naval  Depart 
ment.  No  sooner  did  the  Marine  Commit 
tee  learn  of  the  presence  of  the  French,  than 
it  exerted  itself  to  supply  the  table  of  its 
naval  guests  with  eatables  and  drinkables. 
Casks  of  fresh  water,  several  hundred  barrels 
of  bread  and  flour,  and  a  small  supply  of 
fresh  provisions,  were  at  once  sent  to  the 
Count,  and  the  Committee  ordered  a  com 
missary  to  collect  for  the  use  of  the  French 
fleet  fifty  bullocks,  seven  hundred  sheep,  a 
number  of  poultry,  and  a  quantity  of  vege 
tables.  After  the  ill-starred  expedition 
against  Rhode  Island  in  August,  1778,  when 
the  French  fleet  put  into  Boston  for  repairs, 
its  provisioning  again  became  a  care  to  the 
Naval  Department.  The  Marine  Commit 
tee  ordered  three  thousand  barrels  of  flour 
to  be  sent  on  from  Albany  for  the  use  of 
the  French.2 

The  distinction  of  having  performed  the 
first  work  of  a  consular  bureau  in  the  United 

1.  Edward    Field's  Esek   Hopkins,  237-38. 

2.  Marine   Committee    Letter   Book,    Com 
mittee  to  Count  D'Estaing,  July  12,  July  17 

1778. 


140  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

States  belongs  to  the  Marine  Committee, 
since  it  had  charge  of  the  publication  and 
record  of  the  first  consular  appointments  to 
this  country.  In  accordance  with  the  first 
commercial  treaty  between  the  United 
States  and  France,  Gerard,  the  French 
minister,  soon  after  his  arrival  in  America 
in  July,  1778,  appointed  John  Holker,  con 
sul  for  the  port  of  Philadelphia,  and  in  Sep 
tember  named  a  vice-consul  for  the  same 
place.  The  latter  appointment  Congress  re 
ferred  to  the  Marine  Committee  "in  order 
that  the  same  may  be  made  public. "  A 
similar  disposition  was  made  of  the  appoint 
ments  of  consuls  for  Maryland,  South  Caro 
lina,  and  Boston,  and  of  the  vice-consuls  for 
Alexandria  (Virginia),  and  Virginia.  In  the 
case  of  the  vice-consul  for  Virginia,  Congress 
ordered  the  Marine  Committee  to  "cause 
the  commission  of  Mr.  d'  Annemours  to  be 
recorded  in  the  book  by  them  kept  for  that 
purpose,  and  his  appointment  made  known 
to  all  concerned."  The  Committee  was  in 
strumental  in  obtaining  the  settling  of  the 
powers  and  duties  of  consuls  as  regards  the 
United  States  and  France.  On  August  2, 
1779,  the  control  of  consular  affairs  was  re 
moved  from  the  Marine  Committee  and  vest 
ed  in  the  Secretary  of  Congress.1 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  July 
23,  September  24,  October  27,  November  4, 
1778;  January  21,  June  7,  22,  23,  July  30, 
August  2,  1779. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  CONDITIONS  OF  THE   CONTINENTAL 
NAVAL  SERVICE 

The  nineteenth  century  worked  its  mar 
vels  on  sea  as  well  as  on  land.  The  progress 
of  invention,  the  discovery  of  new  sources 
of  wealth  and  power  in  nature  and  in  man, 
and  the  development  of  powerful  states, 
have  revolutionized  transportation  and  com 
munication  by  sea,  maritime  pursuits,  and 
naval  science.  Commerce  has  found  fleeter 
wings ;  and  it  no  longer  waits  on  the  caprice 
of  Aeolus.  Countless  steamships  with  enor 
mous  tonnage  and  high  rates  of  speed  have 
in  large  measure  supplanted  the  small,  snail- 
like  sailing  craft  of  our  fathers.  The  haz 
ards  of  sea-going  trade  have  been  greatly 
reduced.  Invention  has  pacified  Neptune's 
fierce  temper.  The  breed  of  pirates  and 
corsairs  has  been  exterminated  by  the  long 
muscular  arm  of  the  modern  state.  The  pri 
vations  of  ocean-travel  which  were  distress 
ing  accompaniments  of  the  colonial  per 
iod  in  America,  were  succeeded  about  the 
middle  of  the  last  century  by  the  comforts 
of  the  first  steamships,  and  these  within  the 


142  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

memory  of  young  men  have  yielded  to  the 
luxuries  of  the  floating  palaces  of  the  sea. 

Complementary  to  these  transformations 
in  commerce,  navigation,  and  travel  by  sea, 
have  come  improved  methods  of  their  de 
fence.  Modern  naval  science  in  all  of  its  as 
pects  has  been  developed.  Glancing  for  a 
moment  in  retrospect  at  the  long  line  of  na 
val  progress,  one  sees  it  pass  from  the  an 
cient  row-galleys,  to  the  sailing  ship  of  the 
early  Modern  Age,  and  from  thence  to  the 
steamships  of  to-day.  The  motive  power 
has  changed  from  human  muscle  to  wind, 
and  from  wind  to  steam.  Placed  beside  the 
iron-clad  battleships,  the  light,  wooden 
frigates  of  the  Revolution  look  almost  as 
antiquated  as  tfye  Greek  galley  with  its  fig 
ured  prow.  Smart,  trim,  beautiful  vessels 
were  the  Revolutionary  craft,  but  how  small, 
simple,  and  crude  they  now  appear.  In 
deed,  a  new  type  of  poet,  one  who  loves  raw 
force  first,  and  the  picturesque  afterwards, 
has  risen  to  sing  the  glories  of  new  navies 
and  new  seas. 

Other  naval  changes  have  been  made,  as 
significant  as  those  in  style  of  vessel  and  mo 
tive  power.  Ships  of  war  now  wear  heavy 
coats-of-mail.  The  "great  guns"  and  the 
"long  guns"  of  the  Revolution  are  neither 
great  nor  long  beside  modern  cannon.  A 
new  type  of  sea  officer  has  been  trained  to 
meet  the  new  conditions  of  naval  service. 
It  would  puzzle  a  modern  officer  to  take  a 


A'(7T'v  of  the  American  Revolution   143 

schooner  from  Boston  to  Plymouth,  for  his 
seamanship  is  now  fitted  to  steamships. 
By  over-study  of  modern  armament,  tor 
pedo  boats,  and  the  latest  naval  manoeuvres, 
his  "weather  eye"  has  lost  something  of  its 
skill  for  reading  in  the  skies  the  coming  of 
storms  or  sunshine.  Trim  and  immaculate 
in  their  uniforms,  the  American  naval  offi 
cers  of  to-day,  who  have  entered  the  naval 
profession  by  the  way  of  their  technical 
studies  at  Annapolis,  little  resemble  their 
hardy  prototypes  in  the  Continental  navy, 
to  whom  clung  the  barnacles  of  their  ap 
prenticeship  aboard  merchantmen. 

Notwithstanding  this  revolution  in  naval 
science,  a  consideration  of  the  conditions  of 
the  Continental  naval  service  and  of  the 
naval  policy  of  the  Marine  Committee  has  to 
day  a  practical  value  for  naval  experts. 
Certain  fundamental  principles  in  naval 
science  do  not  change.  Captain  Mahan,  in 
his  " Influence  of  Sea  Power  upon  History," 
has  pointed  out  that,  while  naval  tactics 
vary  with  the  improvements  in  the  motive 
power  and  armament  of  fleets,  the  basic  prin 
ciples  of  naval  strategy  do  not.  They  are  as 
enduring  as  the  order  of  nature.  For  ex 
ample,  one  cannot  conceive  that  there  will 
come  a  time  when  an  inversion  will  be  made 
of  the  strategic  principle,  that  an  enemy 
should  be  struck  at  his  weak  point.  Cap 
tain  Mahan  even  finds  it  worth  while,  for  the 
benefit  of  his  fellow-experts,  to  set  forth  with 


144  Nazy  of  the  American  Revolution 

some  detail  the  naval  strategy  of  the  Car 
thaginian  wars. 

When  America,  in  these  first  years  of  the 
twentieth  century,  makes  an  invoice  of  her 
resources,  she  counts  first  her  great  prairies 
of  the  Mississippi  basin,  her  rich  mines  of 
the  Alleghanies  and  Rockies,  and  her  wealth 
of  manufactories  and  their  products.  In 
1775  her  assets  wrere  of  a  different  sort. 
America  then  was  a  mere  strip  of  seacoast, 
cut  into  a  series  of  peninsulas  by  the  lower 
courses  of  a  number  of  navigable  rivers. 
Her  interests  and  her  wealth  then  wrere  much 
more  largely  maritime  than  now.  Atten 
tion  has  already  been  directed  to  the  wide 
pursuit  of  commerce,  shipbuilding,  fishing, 
and  whaling  in  New  England.  It  remains 
to  be  said  that  in  the  Middle  and  Southern 
colonies  commerce  and  shipbuilding  were 
important  industries.  During  the  Revolu 
tion  Virginia  put  more  naval  ships  afloat 
than  any  other  colony.  In  the  colonial 
period  communication  between  the  towns 
of  the  colonies  was  best  by  water.  The  in 
habitants  of  America,  during  this  period, 
were  amphibious.  They  have  lost  this 
quality,  for  their  character  is  now  fixed  by 
the  "West,"  and  not  by  the  Atlantic  sea 
board.  In  1775  America  had,  relatively, 
many  more  seamen  than  in  1898. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts  it  seems  some 
what  singular  that  the  Revolutionary  navy 
was  forced  to  spend  most  of  its  days  in  port, 


Navy  of'the  American  Revolution  145 

vainly  trying  to  enlist  seamen  for  its  de 
pleted  crews.  To  be  sure  the  lack  of  suffi 
cient  armament,  naval  stores,  and  provis 
ions  was  felt,  but  it  was  the  lack  of  sailors 
that  constituted  the  chief  obstacle  to  the 
success  of  the  Continental  navy.  Those 
vessels  that  finally  weighed  anchor  were 
wanting  as  a  rule  in  this  prime  naval  requi 
site.  The  same  causes  that  prevented  seamen 
from  enlisting  lowered  the  quality  of  those 
that  did  enlist,  and  kept  them  from  enter 
ing  for  longer  than  a  single  cruise.  A 
ship's  complement  of  sailors  was  often  ill- 
assorted.  Seamen  were  improvised  from 
landsmen;  captured  British  seamen  were 
coaxed  into  service;  and  for  one  cause  or 
another  many  nationalities  at  times  shipped 
side  by  side.  These  conditions  made  for 
insubordination,  and  even  mutiny.  On  one 
occasion  seventy  or  eighty  British  sailors, 
who  were  enlisted  on  board  the  Continental 
frigate  "Alliance,"  bound  for  France,  plan 
ned  to  mutiny  and  carry  the  frigate  into  an 
English  port.  In  order  to  obtain  seamen 
many  measures  were  resorted  to  by  Con 
gress,  the  states,  the  Marine  Committee, 
Navy  Boards,  and  commanders  of  vessels. 
Premiums  for  importing  seamen  were  given 
to  foreigners;1  wages  were  advanced  to 
recruits;2  attempts  were  made  to  place  em- 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  April 

2.  Ibid.,  March  29,  1777. 


146  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

bargoes  upon  privateers;1  bounties  were 
paid  to  seamen  enlisting  for  a  year;2  induce 
ments  were  offered  to  those  captured  from 
the  enemy  to  get  them  to  enter  the  Ameri 
can  service;3  some  seamen  were  impressed; 
glowing  advertisements  were  inserted  in 
the  public  prints;4  and  broadsides,  which 

1.  Rhode    Island   Colonial    Records,    VIII, 
53. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  July 
11,  1780. 

3.  Ibid.,  August  5,  1776. 

4.  In  Jtily,    1778,   when   a  joint  American 
and  French  attack  on  Newport  was  planned, 
the  Navy  Board  at  Boston  inserted  a  notice 
in   the    Providence    Gazette,    requiring   sailors 
who  were  enlisted  to  repair  to  their  vessels, 
and  calling  for  recruits.      This  call  was  in  the 
following     language:      "All     seamen    now     in 
America,  who  regard  the  Liberty  of  Mankind, 
or  the  Honor  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
as  well  as  their  own  advantage,  are  now  ear 
nestly    entreated    to    enter    immediately    on 
board    some    of    the    Continental     Vessels,    in 
order  to  afford  all  possible  Aid  and  Assistance 
to  His  Most  Christian  Majesty's  Fleet,  under 
the   Command  of  the   Count   de   Estaing,   the 
Vice- Admiral  of  France,  now  in  the  American 
Seas,  for  the  Purpose  of  assisting  these  Ameri 
can    States    in    vanquishing    a    haughty    and 
cruel   Enemy,  too  long  triumphant  on  these 
Seas.      Now  is  the   Time   to   secure   to   your 
selves  Safety  in  your  future  Voyages,  and  to 
avoid  the  cruelties  which  all  those  experience 
who  have  the  Misfortune  to  be  captured  by 
the  Britons;  and  now  is  the  time  to  make  your 
Fortunes." — Providence     Gazette,     July     25, 
1778.      See  also  advertisement  in  Connecticut 
Gazette,  March  7,  1777. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  147 

cleverly  recited  the  many  advantages  of  the 
Continental  service,  were  displayed  in  sun 
dry  taverns.1 

All  these  efforts  were  defeated  by  the  se 
ductive  allurements  of  privateering.  The 
Revolutionary  Congress  was  poor  and  paid 
poor  wages.  After  its  seamen  had  enlisted, 
they  were  toled  away  by  mercenary  priva- 
teersmen.  These  same  privateersmen  were 
accused  of  taking  the  naval  stores  and  the 
artisans  of  Congress  in  order  to  fit  out  their 
own  ships.  The  owners  and  commanders 
of  privateers,  as  they  received  the  whole 
of  their  captures,  could  afford  to  treat  their 
crews  liberally.  It  was  generally  asserted 
that  they  paid  higher  wages  than  did  Con 
gress  or  the  states.  Privateering  was  more 
popular,  more  elastic,  and  more  irregular 
than  the  other  naval  services.  When  no 
one  was  looking,  parts  of  cargoes  could  more 
readily  be  appropriated  for  private  use 
without  waiting  the  tedious  process  of 
the  admiralty  courts.  Privateersmen  could 
devote  all  their  time  and  energy  to  com 
merce-destroying,  unfettered  by  the  miscel- 


1.  A  facsimile  of  a  most  interesting  and 
rare  broadside  will  be  found  in  C.  K.  Bolton's 
Private  Soldier  under  Wasnrngton,  page  46. 
This  broadside  was  designed  to  attract  re 
cruits  to  the  ship  "Ranger,"  Captain  John 
Paul  Jones,  fitting  out  in  the  summer  of  1777 
at  Portsmouth,  New  Hampshire,  to  sail  for 
France. 


148  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

laneous   duties   which   often   fell   to   naval 
ships. 

The  backbone  of  the  privateering  interest 
was  in  New  England.  Silas  Deane  said  in 
1785  that  four  out  of  every  five  of  the  pri 
vateers  of  the  Revolution  came  from  the 
states  north  and  east  of  the  Delaware  river. 
This  probably  overstates  the  proportion  in 
favor  of  the  northern  states.1  Pennsylvania 
and  Maryland  did  considerable  business,  but 
farther  to  the  southward  the  industry  was 
less  flourishing.  The  Virginia  privateers  did 
little.  Massachusetts  sent  out  one-third  of 
all  the  privateers.  From  1777  until  1783, 
inclusive,  the  Massachusetts  Council  issued 
998  commissions.  In  1779,  184  prizes  cap 
tured  by  privateers  were  libelled  in  the 
three  admiralty  courts  of  this  state.  The 
average  burden  of  these  captured  vessels 
was  one  hundred  tons.  Rhode  Island's 
best  year  was  probably  in  1776,  when  thirty- 
eight  vessels  were  libelled  at  Providence. 
A  list  of  202  privateers  has  been  made  out 
for  Connecticut.  In  1779  twenty-nine  ves 
sels  taken  from  the  British  by  privateers 
were  libelled  in  the  Pennsylvania  court  of 
admiralty.  During  the  last  six  years  of  the 
war  Maryland  issued  about  250  commissions. 
Boston 'was  the  chief  center  for  fitting  out 
privateers  and  for  selling  their  prizes,  al- 


1.      Collections  of  New  York  Historical  So 
ciety,  Deane  Papers,  V,  466. 


Nai'v  of  the  American  Revolution  149 

though  towns  like  Salem  and  Marblehead 
did  a  thriving  business.1 

Not  a  few  of  the  failures  and  misfortunes 
of  the  Continental  navy  are  to  be  laid  at 
the  doors  of  the  Yankee  privateersmen, 
whose  love  for  Mammon  exceeded  that  for 
their  country.2  A  more  patriotic  course 
was  to  have  been  expected  of  certain  sub 
stantial  merchants  who  embarked  in  the 
business  of  commerce-destroying.  But  on 
the  other  hand,  one  might  easily  be  too 
severe  on  many  bold,  simple,  seafaring  folk. 
The  war,  which  deprived  them  of  their 
gainful  pursuits  at  sea,  now  pointed  the 
way,  as  a  recompense,  to  a  new  and  attrac 
tive  calling.  Wives  and  babies  were  still 
to  be  fed,  and  plans  for  sweethearts  to  be 
realized.  The  new  trade  was  as  alluring  as 
a  lottery.  Had  not  a  neighbor  drawn  a 
competence  sufficient  for  almost  a  lifetime 

1.  For  additional  information  and  appro 
priate    references    concerning    privateers,    see 
Part  II,  State  Navies. 

2.  There  is  much  evidence  on  this  point. 
See   especially    Publications   of    Rhode    Island 
Historical    Society,    VIII,    256,    William    Ver- 
non,  Commissioner  of  Navy  Board  at  Boston, 
to   John   Adams,   December    17,    1778;   Force, 
American  Archives,  5th,  II,   1105,  John  Paul 
Jones    to    Robert    Morris,    October    17,    1776; 
Ibid.,  599,  Mrs.  John  Adams  to  John  Adams, 
September  29,  1776;  Ibid.,  337  and  622;  Ibid., 
5th,  III,   1513,  Benjamin  Rush  to  R.  H.  Lee, 
December  21,  1776;  and  C.  K.  Bolton,  Private 
Soldier  under  Washington,  45,  46. 


150  A^flrv  of  the  American  Revolution 

by  a  successful  haul  of  the  enemy's  rich 
West  Indiamen?  It  was  true  that  another 
neighbor,  who  but  recently  sailed  proudly 
for  sea  with  women-folk  waving  a  last 
good-bye,  now  languished  in  a  prison-ship 
off  New  York,  or  was  starving  in  the  old 
Mill  prison  at  Plymouth,  England.  "But 
then  a  man  must  take  his  chances,"  each 
privateersman  argued,  "and  it  may  be  I, 
who  by  a  fortunate  cruise  shall  bring  home 
enough  Jamaica  rum  to  fairly  float  my 
schooner,  arid  every  pint  of  it  is  as  good  as 
gold  coin." 

Due  credit  must  always  be  given  to  the 
hardy  and  venturesome  privateersmen  for 
supplying  the  army  and  navy  with  the 
sinews  of  war,  which  they  captured.  To  be 
sure,  if  Congress  or  the  states  wished  their 
captured  property,  it  was  to  be  had  by  pay 
ing  a  good  round  price  for  it  in  the  open 
market.  Even  here  the  government's  agents 
sometimes  suspected  collusions  between  the 
buyers  and  the  agents  of  the  captors  to  run 
up  prices  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  govern 
ment.1  The  privateersmen  were  engaged 

1.  In  the  case  of  Continental  prizes  the 
Navy  Board  at  Boston  discovered  collusions 
which  were  detrimental  to  the  government. 
Ordered  to  buy  the  Continental  prize  "Thorn," 
it  writes  to  the  Marine  Committee  that  the 
agents  and  captains  interested  in  the  prize 
refuse  to  let  it  have  the  "Thorn"  at  a  price 
to  be  fixed  by  three  disinterested  appraisers; 
and  that  "taking  our  chance,  in  the  purchase 
by  auction,  amongst  such  circles  of  men  in  com- 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  151 

not  in  patriotic,  but  business  ventures. 
Could  one-half  of  this  irregular  service  have 
been  enlisted  in  the  Continental  and  state 
navies,  the  other  half  could  not  have  been 
better  employed  than  in  its  work  of  distress 
ing  the  enemy's  commerce,  transports,  and 
small  letters  of  marque.  Zealous  eulogists 
of  the  privateers  have  overrun  the  cup  of 
their  merit.  They  have  not  always  pointed 
out  that  the  number  of  American  priva 
teers,  merchantmen,  fishermen,  and  whale 
men  captured  by  British  privateers  and 
small  naval  craft  was  comparable  to  the 
number  of  similar  British  vessels  taken  by 
the  American  privateers.  The  prison  ships 
and  naval  prisons  of  the  enemy  at  New 
York,  in  Canada,  the  British  West  Indies, 
and  England  were  at  times  crowded  with 
Americans  captured  at  sea.1  A  few  of  these 
men  England  enlisted  in  her  navy;  and  with 
others  she  manned  a  whaling-fleet  for  the 
coast  of  Brazil  composed  of  seventeen  ves 
sels.  It  is,  however,  worthy  of  note  that 

binations  is  a  miserable  one. ' '  In  the  same  letter 
the  Board  writes  also  concerning  the  "Thorn" 
that  "bets  run  high  that  she  will  sell  for 
two  hundred  thousand  pounds." — Records 
and  Papers  of  Continental  Congress,  37,  pp. 
145,  147. 

1.  See  Chapter  IX,  page  267;  also  Gomer 
Williams,  Liverpool  Privateers,  Chapter  IV, 
Privateers  of  the  American  War  of  Independ 
ence.  From  August,  1778,  to  April,  1779,  Liver 
pool  fitted  out  one  hundred  and  twenty  pri 
vateers. 


152  A'avy  of  the  American  Revolution 

the  supplies  captured  from  the  British  were 
often  almost  indispensable  to  the  colonists; 
while  similar  captures  made  by  the  British 
had  to  the  captors  little  value. 

Another  factor  in  the  naval  situation 
of  the  Americans  was  the  existence  of 
state  navies  in  Massachusetts,  Rhode 
Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  Penn 
sylvania,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Caro 
lina,  and  South  Carolina.  The  fleet  of 
Massachusetts,  comprising  sixteen  armed 
vessels,  was  the  most  active  and  effect 
ive  of  the  state  fleets.  The  Virginia  navy 
numbering  about  fifty  vessels,  was  poorly 
equipped  and  rendered  little  service.  These 
fleets  were  made  up  of  all  sorts  of  naval 
craft;  sailing  vessels  variously  rigged, 
fire-ships,  floating  batteries,  barges,  row- 
galleys  with  and  without  sails,  half-galleys, 
and  boats  of  all  sizes.  Most  of  this  craft 
was  designed  for  the  defence  of  coasts, 
rivers,  and  towns.  This  was  especially  true 
of  the  galleys,  which  were  shallow  vessels, 
some  seventy  or  eighty  feet  in  length,  carry 
ing  two  or  three  cannon,  sometimes  as  large 
as  36's  or  42's.  Only  some  sixty  of  these 
vessels  of  the  state  navies  were  well  adapted 
for  deep-sea  navigation.1 

To  a  limited  extent  both  privateers  and 
state  vessels  were  placed  at  the  service  of 
the  Marine  Committee.  There  were  cruises, 
expeditions,  and  defences  of  towns,  in  which 

1.      See  Part  II,  State  Navies. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   153 

two,  or  the  three,  services  participated.  In 
such  cases  the  senior  Continental  captain 
was  regularly  the  ranking  officer,  or  the  com 
modore  of  the  fleet,  as  it  was  then  expressed. 
To  the  extent  that  state  vessels  and  priva 
teers  might  be  concerted  with  the  Continen 
tal  vessels,  it  would  seem  at  first  blush 
that  they  undoubtedly  were  elements  of 
naval  strength  to  the  Marine  Committee. 
This  was  by  no  means  true.  These  con 
certed  expeditions  proved  disappointing, 
and  when  too  late  the  Committee  became 
wary  of  them.  Proper  subordination,  upon 
which  naval  success  so  much  depends,  could 
not  be  obtained  in  these  mixed  fleets.  The 
commander  of  a  state  vessel  or  the  master 
of  a  privateer,  for  aught  either  could  see, 
subtended  as  large  an  angle  in  maritime 
affairs,  as  an  officer  of  Congress,  which 
body  was  to  them  nebulous,  uncertain,  and 
irresolute. 

If  the  location  and  physical  form  of  colo 
nial  America  with  reference  to  the  sea 
tended  to  develop  a  maritime  people,  they 
also  made  most  difficult  the  problems  of 
naval  defence.  As  has  been  pointed  out, 
the  territory  of  the  revolting  colonies  com 
prised  a  narrow  band  of  seacoast  divided 
into  a  number  of  peninsulas.  All  the  large 
towns  were  seaports.  Had  the  peninsulas 
been  islands,  their  defence  against  the  great 
sea-power  of  England  would  have  been  an 
impossibility.  The  connections  by  land  on 


154  -Vary  of  the  American  Revolution 

the  west  side  of  the  thirteen  colonies  gave 
Washington  a  most  valuable  line  of  commun 
ications  from  Canada  to  Florida.  Had  the 
revolting  territory  lain  compactly,  approach 
ing  a  square  in  shape,  with  a  narrow  front 
age  on  the  sea,  its  naval  defence  would  have 
been  a  simple  problem. 

Having  decided  late  in  1775  to  make  a 
naval  defence,  Congress  early  in  1776  took 
into  consideration  the  establishing  of  one 
or  more  bases  for  naval  operations.1  There 
were  needed  one  or  more  strongly  fortified 
ports  where  the  Continental  fleet  and  its 
prizes  would  be  comparatively  secure  from 
attack,  and  where  the  armed  vessels  could 
equip,  man,  and  refit.  The  ports  best 
adapted  for  naval  stations  were  Boston, 
New  York,  Philadelphia,  some  point  on  or 
near  the  James  river  in  Virginia,  and  Charles 
ton,  South  Carolina.  Lesser  towns  had 
their  advocates  and  their  hopes.  In  Feb 
ruary,  1776,  Gurdon  Saltonstall  of  Connec 
ticut  wrote  to  Silas  Deane  that  New  London 
would  be  "the  Asylum  of  Cont.  Navey," 
for  "one  they  must  have  of  necessity."2 
The  Southern  ports  were  not  available  for 
several  reasons,  but  chiefly  on  account  of 
their  distance  from  the  center  of  maritime 
interests  in  New  England.  New  York  was 


1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  March 
23,  1776. 

2.  Papers  of  Silas  Deane  in  the  Library  of 
the  Connecticut  Historical  Society. 


Xavy  of  the  American  Revolution  155 

occupied  by  the  British.  Philadelphia  had 
many  points  in  its  favor,  not  the  least  of 
which  was  the  location  there  of  Congress 
and  the  Marine  Committee.  Its  occupation 
for  a  time  by  the  enemy  in  1777  and  1778, 
and  the  close  watch  which  his  armed  vessels 
maintained  at  the  mouth  of  Delaware  Bay, 
greatly  impaired  its  usefulness  as  a  harbor 
of  refuge  for  the  Continental  vessels.  Bos 
ton  was  by  far  the  most  available  port. 
After  its  abandonment  by  the  British  in 
March,  1776,  and  the  shifting  of  the  theater 
of  the  war  first  to  the  Middle  and  later  to 
the  Southern  states,  it  was  left  compara 
tively  free  from  British  interference.  It 
was  the  naval  emporium  of  the  Revolution, 
where  naval  stores,  armament  and  equip 
ment  for  vessels  of  war,  seamen,  and  ships 
could  be  procured,  if  they  were  to  be  had 
at  all. 

The  British  had  naval  bases  in  America 
that  left. little  to  be  desired.  When  they 
seized  New  York  in  September,  1776,  they 
obtained  not  only  a  military  point  of  the 
highest  strategic  value,  but  also  a  secure 
naval  station  for  fitting  out  and  refitting 
their  privateers  and  naval  ships.  From 
New  York,  centrally  situated  with  reference 
to  the  revolting  colonies,  their  vessels  pro 
ceeded  along  the  Atlantic  coast  both  north 
ward  and  southward  on  the  outlook  for 
American  merchantmen,  privateers,  and 
naval  craft.  Their  favorite  patrolling 


of  the  American  Revolution 


grounds  were  off  the  entrances  of  Delaware, 
Chesapeake,  and  Narragansett  bays.  Brit 
ish  vessels  were  also  to  be  found  off 
Boston  Bay,  Ocracoke  Inlet,  Cape  Fear, 
Charleston,  and  Savannah.  The  British 
occupation  of  Newport  from  1776  to  1779, 
and  of  Savannah  from  1778,  and  Charles 
ton  from  1780,  to  the  end  of  the  war, 
afforded  other  convenient  stations  for 
British  operations  against  the  shipping  of 
the  colonies.  St.  Augustine  was  a  port  of 
much  importance  in  the  movements  of  the 
enemy's  smaller  ships.  The  naval  stations 
at  Halifax,  Jamaica,  and  the  Bermudas, 
while  not  so  convenient  as  those  enumerated, 
were  sources  of  naval  strength  to  the  Brit 
ish.  Halifax  was  a  base  for  the  naval  oper 
ations  against  New  England.  It  scarcely 
needs  to  be  said  that  the  ports  mentioned 
were  in  a  way  secondary  bases  of  opera 
tions,  and  that  England's  center  for  ships, 
seamen,  and  supplies  of  all  sorts  was  the 
British  Isles. 

From  this  account  of  the  respective  naval 
stations  in  America  of  the  two  combatants, 
one  proceeds  naturally  to  a  comparison  of 
their  fleets.  The  rude  naval  craft  of  the 
Americans,  two-thirds  of  which  were  made- 
over  merchantmen,  was  outclassed  by  the 
vessels  of  the  Royal  Navy  at  every  point. 
Disregarding  the  fleets  of  Washington  and 
Arnold,  there  were  during  the  Revolution 
fifty-six  armed  vessels  in  the  American 


A  flc'y  of  the  American  Revolution  157 

navy,  mounting  on  the  average  about  twen 
ty  guns.  The  vessels  in  the  British  navy 
when  the  Revolution  opened  in  1775  num 
bered  270,  and  when  it  closed,  468. 1  Of  this 
latter  number,  174  were  ships  of  the  line, 
each  mounting  between  sixty  and  one  hun 
dred  guns.  The  naval  force  of  the  Ameri 
cans  when  it  was  at  its  maximum  in  the 
fall  of  1776  consisted  of  27  ships,  mounting 
on  the  average  twenty  guns.2  At  the  same 
time  the  British  had  on  the  American  sta 
tion,  besides  a  number  of  small  craft,  71 
ships,  which  mounted  on  the  average  twenty- 
eight  guns.3  Of  these,  two  were  64's;  one,  a 
60;  seven,  50's;  and  three,  44's.  The  British 
vessels,  being  so  much  larger  than  the  Amer 
ican,  were  naturally  armed  with  much  heav 
ier  guns.  Very  few  18-pounders  were  to 
be  found  in  the  Continental  navy.  The  fri 
gates  were  usually  mounted  with  12's,  9's, 
and  6's;  and  many  of  the  smaller  craft  with 
6's  and  4;s.  The  guns  on  the  larger  British 
ships  mounted  18's,  24's,  32's,  and  42;s. 

An  exhibition  of  figures  showing  the  dif 
ference  in  size  between  one  of  the  largest  of 

1.  Clowes,  Royal  Navy,  III,  328. 

2.  Few  of  these  vessels  were  ready  for  sea 
for  lack  of  crews.      The   British  also  suffered 
greatly   during  the   Revolution   owing  to   the 
scarcity   of   seamen.      This  the   First    Lord   of 
the  Admiralty  attributed  to  the  loss  of  18,000 
American  sailors,  who  had  contributed  to  the 
manning  of  the  British  fleets  in  former  wars. 
— Annual  Register,  1778,  201. 

3.  Boston  Gazette,  November  4,  1776. 


158  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

the  frigates  built  by  the  Marine  Committee 
in  1776  and  a  typical  100-gun  ship  of  the 
line  of  the  Royal  Navy  is  interesting  not 
only  by  way  of  comparison,  but  also  as 
giving  a  notion  of  the  size  of  Revolutionary 
naval  craft.  The  figures  in  feet  for  the 
American  32-gun  frigate,  "  Hancock,"  and 
for  the  British  100-gun  ship,  "Victo 
ry/'  respectively,  were  as  follows  :  Length 
of  gun  deck,  137  and  186;  length  of  keel, 
116  and  151;  width  of  beam,  34  and  52; 
depth,  12  and  22.  The  tonnage  of  the 
"Hancock's"  companion  frigate,  the  "Bos 
ton,"  was  515  tons;  of  the  "Alfred,"  the 
first  ship  fitted  out  by  Congress,  200  tons.1 
Continental  naval  craft,  such  as  the 
"  Cabot,"  "Wasp,"  and  "  Fly,"  were  smaller 
still  than  the  "Alfred." 

The  number  of  seamen  and  marines  in  the 
Continental  navy  is  believed  not  to  have 
exceeded  at  any  time  three  thousand  men. 
The  exact  number  of  commissioned  officers 
in  the  Continental  navy  and  marine  corps 
may  not  as  yet  have  been  ascertained. 
Owing  to  the  diffusion  of  the  power  of  ap 
pointment,  the  Naval  Department  of  the 
Revolution  seems  to  have  prepared  no  per 
fect  list  of  its  officers.  The  best  list  of 
commissioned  officers,  and  one  that  in  all 
probability  needs  few  corrections  was  com- 

1.  A  battleship  building  in  1903  at  the 
New  York  navy  yard  has  a  displacement  of 
16,000  tons. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  159 

piled  in  1794  in  the  Auditor's  Office,  De 
partment  of  the  Treasury.1  This  gives  the 
names  of  1  commander-in-chief,  45  captains, 
and  132  lieutenants,  or  178  commissioned 
officers  in  all,  in  the  navy  proper;  and  1 
major,  31  captains,  and  91  lieutenants,  or 
123  commissioned  officers,  in  the  marine 
corps.  With  the  exception  of  the  years 
1776  and  1777,  when  the  total  number  of 
officers  in  actual  service  was  about  one-half 
of  the  above  figures,  the  number  of  officers 
at  sea  or  attached  to  vessels  in  ports  was 
much  less  than  one-half.  In  1902  the  Amer 
ican  navy  consisted  of  899  commissioned 
officers  of  the  line,  arranged  in  eight  grades. 

In  1775  the  British  navy  contained  18,000 
seamen  and  marines,  and  when  the  war 
closed  in  1783  this  number  had  risen  to 
110,000.  The  total  " extra"  and  " ordi 
nary"  expenses  of  the  Royal  Navy  from 
1775  to  1783,  as  voted  by  Parliament, 
amounted  to  £8,386,000.2 

Both  Continental  and  state  naval  services 
suffered  from  the  lack  of  esprit  de  corps, 
naval  traditions,  and  a  proper  subordina 
tion  and  concert  of  action  between  officers 
and  crews.  Bravery  is  often  a  poor  sub 
stitute  for  organization  and  naval  experi 
ence  and  skill.  Navies  can  be  grown,  but 
not  created.  The  quality  of  the  Continen- 

1.  Manuscript   list,   in    Division    of    Manu-. 
scripts,  Library  of  Congress. 

2.  Clowes,  Royal  Navy,  III,  327. 


160  Xavy  of  the  American  Revolution 

tal  naval  officers,  diluted  it  is  true  by  the 
presence  of  a  few  "political  skippers/'  was 
upon  the  whole  as  high  as  the  circum 
stances  of  their  choice  and  the  naval  ex 
perience  of  the  country  admitted.  Many 
of  them  were  drawn  from  the  merchant  ser 
vice,  and  a  few  had  had  some  months7  ex 
perience  in  state  navies.  Six  captains  ap 
pointed  by  Washington  entered  the  service 
of  the  Marine  Committee. 

The  vessels  of  the  Continental  navy  were 
procured  and  managed  under  several  Con 
tinental  auspices.  The  Marine  Committee, 
with  its  predecessor  and  its  successors  in  naval 
administration  was  the  chief  naval  admin 
istrative  organ  of  the  Revolutionary  gov 
ernment.  We  have  already  seen,  however, 
that  Washington  fitted  out  one  fleet  in  New 
England  and  another  in  New  York;  and 
that  Arnold  fought  with  still  another  fleet, 
one  of  the  most  important  naval  engage 
ments  of  the  Revolution.  In  a  succeeding 
chapter  we  shall  find  that  the  American  rep 
resentatives  in  France,  who  were  respon 
sible  to  the  Foreign  Office  of  Congress,  and 
the  Continental  agent  at  New  Orleans,  who 
worked  chiefly  under  the  Committee  of 
Commerce,  fitted  out  fleets,  and  were  vested 
with  important  naval  duties.  At  one  and 
the  same  time  three  committees  of  Congress, 
the  Marine  Committee,  the  Committee  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  and  the  Committee  of  Com 
merce,  were  fitting  out  armed  vessels. 


CHAPTER   VI 

MOVEMENTS      OF      THE       CONTINENTAL 

FLEET  UNDER    THE    MARINE 

COMMITTEE 

Many  duties  fell  to  the  Marine  Committee 
and  its  fleet  which  were  not  of  a  purely 
military  character.  The  Committee  was 
obliged  to  employ  some  of  its  vessels  in 
keeping  open  the  commercial  and  diplo 
matic  communications  of  the  United  States 
with  Europe  and  the  West  Indies;  upon 
this  intercourse  with  foreign  countries 
largely  depended  the  successful  issue  of  the 
war.  The  Committee  detailed  vessels  to 
carry  abroad  ambassadors,  and  foreign 
agents;  letters  and  dispatches;  tobacco,  fish, 
flour,  indigo,  and  such  other  colonial  pro 
ducts  as  exchanged  well  for  naval  stores, 
clothing,  and  the  munitions  of  war.  Among 
the  distinguished  men  who  took  passage  on 
board  the  Continental  vessels  were  John 
Adams,  Lafayette,  and  Gerard,  the  first 
French  minister  to  the  United  States.  In 
this  work  it  cooperated  with  other  com 
mittees  of  Congress,  and  most  especially 


1 62  ATfl7'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

with  the  Committee  of  Secret  Correspon 
dence,  or  its  successor,  the  Committee  of 
Foreign  Affairs;  and  with  the  Secret  Com 
mittee,  or,  as  it  was  later  called,  the  Com 
mittee  of  Commerce.  Owing  to  the  close 
connection  of  the  wrork  of  the  Marine  Com 
mittee  and  the  Committee  of  Commerce  in 
exporting  colonial  products  and  in  importing 
supplies,  their  accounts  became  inextric 
ably  confused.  While  running  errands  for 
the  various  administrative  organs  of  Con 
gress,  the  Marine  Committee  often  at  the 
same  time  ran  errands  of  its  own.  A  com 
mander  who  had  been  selected  to  carry 
abroad  a  minister  or  foreign  agent,  might 
be  ordered  to  pick  up  any  prizes  which  fell 
in  his  way,  or  to  cruise  for  a  brief  period  in 
European  waters  while  waiting  for  letters 
and  packets  from  Paris  addressed  to  Con 
gress;  or  if  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  a 
voyage  in  which  dispatch  was  of  the  highest 
importance,  he  would  be  specifically  for 
bidden  to  do  these  very  things. 

Turning  now  to  the  strictly  military  work 
of  the  Committee,  one  finds  that  clearness 
in  presentation  will  be  obtained  by  making 
a  classification  of  naval  operations.  These 
will  be  divided  into  primary  and  secondary 
operations.  A  primary  operation  will  be 
defined  as  one  directed  against  the  enemy's 
naval  vessels  at  sea.  Any  other  naval  opera 
tion  whatsoever  will  be  called  asecondary  one. 
Primary  operations  will  be  divided  into  ma- 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   163 

jor  and  minor  operations.  In  major  primary 
operations  fleets  of  considerable  size  and  force 
are  matched  against  each  other,  as  was  the 
case  at  the  battles  of  Santiago,  Trafalgar, 
and  Martinique.  Minor  primary  operations 
are  engagements  between  some  two  or 
three  of  the  smaller  vessels  of  the  combat 
ants.  A  good  example  of  these  is  the  fight 
between  the  "Bon  Homme  Richard"  and 
the  "Serapis."  Secondary  operations  are 
of  several  forms,  chief  of  which  is  "com 
merce-destroying."  Continental  vessels 
during  a  single  cruise  sometimes  engaged  in 
both  primary  and  secondary  operations. 

In*  the  light  of  the  comparison  which  has 
been  made  showing  the  relative  strength 
of  the  Continental  and  British  navies,  the 
reader  does  not  need  to  be  told  that  the 
Marine  Committee  did  not  engage  its  fleet 
in  major  primary  operations.  The  very  ex 
istence  of  the  Continental  vessels  depended 
upon  their  success  in  keeping  outside  the 
range  of  the  larger  guns  of  the  Royal  Navy. 
The  Marine  Committee  sometimes  gave 
specific  orders  to  its  captains  to  avoid  the 
British  "two-deckers."  In  the  minor  pri 
mary  operations  of  the  Revolution  some 
thirty  or  thirty-five  engagements  may  be 
counted.  The  honors  here  are  upon  the 
whole  evenly  divided.  The  Americans  cap 
tured  ten  or  twelve  naval  vessels  of  the 
enemy.  With  the  exceptions  of  the  frigate 
"Fox,"  26.  captured  by  Captain  John  Manly 


164  A'fli'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

between  New  England  and  Newfoundland; 
and  the  sloop  "Drake,"  20,  and  the  ships 
"Countess  of  Scarborough/'  20,  and  " Sera- 
pis,"  44,  captured  by  Captain  John  Paul 
Jones  in  European  waters,  the  prizes  of  the 
Americans  were  minor  naval  craft,  averag 
ing  ten  or  twelve  4's  and  6's.  The  British 
captured  or  destroyed  about  the  same  num 
ber  of  vessels  as  they  lost,  but  their  prizes 
on  the  average  were  larger  and  better  armed 
vessels  than  were  those  of  the  Americans. 
Seven  of  them  were  frigates.  On  the  other 
hand  the  British  had  no  victory  as  brilliant 
as  that  of  Jones  off  Flamborough  Head. 

The  secondary  operations  of  the  Conti 
nental  navy  were  more  important  than  its 
primary  operations.  They  mainly  involved 
the  protection  of  American  commerce,  the 
defence  of  certain  Atlantic  ports,  the  strik 
ing  of  the  lines  of  communication  of  the 
British  military  forces,  the  attacking  of  the 
enemy's  commerce  at  sea,  and  the  threaten 
ing  and  assailing  of  her  unprotected  coasts 
and  ports  both  at  home  and  in  her  outlying 
dependencies.  Each  of  these  forms  of 
secondary  operations  will  now  be  briefly 
considered. 

The  Committee  defended  American  com 
merce  by  ordering  its  cruisers  to  "attack, 
take,  burn,  or  destroy"  the  enemy's  priva 
teers.  One  illustration  of  such  orders  will 
suffice.  In  November,  1778,  the  Committee 
wrote  to  the  Navy  Board  at  Boston  that 


Naz'y  of  tlic  American  Revolution  165 

"at  present  we  consider  it  an  Object  of  im 
portance  to  destroy  the  infamous  Goodrich 
who  has  much  infested  our  Coast,  cruising 
with  a  squadron  of  4,  5,  or  6  armed  Vessels, 
from  16  guns  downwards,  from  Egg  Har 
bour  to  Cape  Fear  in  North  Carolina."1  In 
its  orders  the  Committee  as  a  rule  included 
the  small  naval  ships  of  the  enemy  with  the 
privateers.  Of  the  three  naval  captains 
who  lost  their  lives  in  the  Continental  serv 
ice,  two  of  them  were  killed  in  engagements 
with  privateers.  On  March  4,  1778,  the 
brigantine  "  Resistance/'  Captain  Samuel 
Chew,  while  cruising  in  the  West  India  seas 
had  a  desperate  and  indecisive  encounter 
with  a  letter  of  marque  of  20  guns.  Chew 
and  his  lieutenant,  George  Champlin,  both 
of  New  London,  were  killed;  Chew  was  a 
native  of  Virginia.2  Late  in  the  summer  of 
1778  the  "  General  Gates/'  18,  Captain  John 
Skimmer,  captured  the  brigantine  "  Mon 
tague  "  in  an  engagement  in  which  Captain 
Skimmer  lost  his  life.3 

In  addition  to  defending  the  American 
commerce  by  cruising  against  the  privateers 
and  small  naval  ships  of  the  enemy,  the 

1.  Marine  Committee   Letter  Book,   Com 
mittee  to  Navy  Board  at  Boston,  November 
16,  1778. 

2.  F.  M.  Caulkins,  History  of  New  London, 
539-40;  Records  and  Papers  of  New  London 
Historical  Society,  Part  IV,  I,  9. 

3.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,   Sep 
tember  14,  1778. 


i66  A  (77'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

Continental  vessels  often  threw  their  pro 
tecting  arm  directly  around  the  trade  of  the 
states.  Vessels  were  often  detailed  to  con 
voy  to  sea  American  merchantmen  and 
packets.  At  times  when  the  trade  was 
bound  for  France,  the  Continental  vessels 
accompanied  it  even  as  far  as  the  Grand 
Banks  of  Newfoundland,  but  as  a  rule  their 
services  did  not  extend  beyond  a  few  leagues 
from  the  American  coast.  Sometimes  the 
Continental  vessels  were  ordered  to  cruise 
off  the  Delaware  Bay,  or  similar  channel,  to 
guide  and  protect  incoming  shipping. 

The  Marine  Committee  cooperated  with 
the  army  in  the  defence  and  in  the  attack 
of  certain  ports.  In  the  campaigns  around 
Philadelphia  in  1777  and  1778  the  Continen 
tal  navy  lost  some  ten  vessels,  including  three 
of  the  thirteen  original  frigates;  and  at  the 
siege  of  Charleston  in  1780  it  lost  four  ves 
sels.  The  British  occupation  of  New  York 
caused  the  destruction  of  the  two  frigates 
built  at  Poughkeepsie.  In  1779  a  Conti 
nental  vessel  aided  a  Spanish  expedition  in 
capturing  Mobile.  Several  times  the  Com 
mittee  placed  part  of  its  fleet  under  the  con 
trol  of  Washington  and  the  Admiral  of  the 
French  naval  forces,  when  they  were  plan 
ning  an  attack  upon  some  seaport  held  by 
the  enemy. 

In  1779  Gerard,  the  French  minister,  de 
vised  a  plan  which  contemplated  a  joint 
expedition  of  the  French  and  American 


.Vary  of  the  American  Revolution  167 

fleets  against  the  British  colonies  to  the 
northward.  Gerard's  purpose  was  "to  give 
the  King  of  France  Halifax  and  Newfound 
land."  In  May,  1779,  he  consulted  with 
Washington  in  his  camp  about  the  pro 
posed  expedition.  By  September  Gerard's 
plan,  or  a  similar  one,  had  so  far  matured 
that  the  Marine  Committee  ordered  the 
Navy  Board  at  Boston  to  prepare  the  Con 
tinental  vessels  for  a  three  months'  cruise 
and  to  hold  them  ready  to  sail  at  a  moment's 
warning  to  join  the  French  fleet,  or  to  pro 
ceed  to  such  other  place  as  Washington  or 
Count  D'Estaing  might  direct.  The  Board 
was  to  provide  a  sufficient  number  of  pilots 
for  Newfoundland,  Halifax,  Rhode  Island, 
and  the  Penobscot  river.  This  expedition 
was  not  abandoned  until  November,  1779.1 
The  Committee  struck  at  the  enemy's 
lines  of  communication  between  his  army 
and  navy  in  America,  and  the  British  Isles, 
Canada,  the  Bermudas,  Florida,  and  the 
West  Indies.  After  the  transfer  of  the  war 
to  the  Southern  states  in  1778  and  1779, 
transports  running  between  New  York  and 
Savannah  and  Charleston  were  vulnerable 
craft.  The  capture  of  British  transports 
laden  with  munitions  of  war,  provisions,  and 
troops  had  the  advantage  of  obtaining  for 

1.  Bancroft,  History  of  United  States,  V, 
319;  Marine  Committee  Letter  Book,  Commit 
tee  to  Navy  Board  at  Boston,  September  28, 
November  10,  1779. 


168  Naz'\  of  the  American  Revolution 

the  Americans  the  very  sinews  of  war,  of 
which  the  enemy  were  deprived.  When 
troops  were  captured,  they  could  be  ex 
changed  for  an  equal  number  of  American 
prisoners.  The  reader  may  recall  that  it 
was  for  the  purpose  of  intercepting  British 
transports  that  Congress  fitted  out  the 
first  Continental  vessels  in  October,  1775. 

The  most  successful  capture  of  the  ene 
my's  transports  was  made  in  the  spring  of 
1779.  In  order  to  protect  the  trade  of  the 
Southern  states,  depredations  upon  which 
were  most  frequent  and  destructive,  the 
Marine  Committee  in  February  of  that  year, 
ordered  the  Navy  Board  at  Boston  to  send 
certain  of  the  Continental  vessels  to  sweep 
the  coast  from  Cape  May  to  the  bar  of 
South  Carolina.  This  detail  of  the  armed 
vessels  was  made  partly  to  satisfy  the  mer 
chants  of  Baltimore,  who  had  complained 
to  Congress  that  their  interests  were  being 
neglected.  On  March  13  a  fleet  consisting 
of  the  "Warren,"  32,  Captain  J.  B.  Hop 
kins,  as  commodore,  the  "Queen  of  France," 
28,  Captain  Joseph  Olney,  and  the  "Rang 
er/'  18,  Captain  Thomas  Simpson,  sailed 
from  Boston,  for  the  coast  of  the  Southern 
states.  On  April  7  they  captured  the  pri 
vateer  schooner,  "Hibernia."  This  vessel 
told  them  of  the  sailing  of  a  fleet  of  trans 
ports  from  New  York,  bound  for  Brigadier- 
General  Campbell's  army  in  Georgia,  and 
laden  with  stores  and  supplies.  The  next 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  169 

day  fifteen  leagues  off  Cape  Henry,  Hop 
kins  fell  in  with  the  fleet;  and  meeting  with 
a  trifling  resistance,  he  made  prizes  of  seven 
out  of  its  nine  vessels.  These  prizes  were 
all  sent  to  New  England.  On  April  22,  the 
"Queen  of  France"  arrived  in  Boston  with 
the  ship  "Maria,"  16,  carrying  eighty-four 
men,  the  schooner  "Hibernia,"  8,  also  car 
rying  eighty-four  men,  and  the  brigs  "John," 
200  tons,  "Batchelor,"  120  tons,  and  "  Prince 
Frederick,"  160  tons.  Another  prize,  His 
Majesty's  ship  "Jason,"  16,  with  one  hun 
dred  men,  also  reached  Boston.  The 
"Ranger"  put  into  Portsmouth  with  the 
schooner  "Chance"  and  a  brig.  The 
Marine  Committee  wrote  to  Captain  Hop 
kins  congratulating  him  and  his  fellow  cap 
tains  on  the  fortunate  outcome  of  their 
cruise.1 

The  most  important  objective  of  the 
Marine  Committee  in  its  naval  operations 
was  the  capture  of  England's  commerce  in 
transit  at  sea.  The  Committee  planned  to 
intercept  her  sugar  ships  of  the  West  Indies, 
her  Newfoundland  fishing  craft,  her  Hud 
son  bay  fleet  laden  with  skins  and  peltries, 
her  Guineamen  with  cargoes  of  ivory  and 

1.  Marine  Committee  Letter  Book,  Com 
mittee  to  Captain  Olney,  to  Captain  Harding, 
and  to  Navy  Board  at  Boston,  February  10, 
1779;  Committee  to  Merchants  of  Baltimore, 
February  23,  1779;  Boston  Gazette,  April  26, 
1779;  Publications  of  Rhode  Island  Historical 
Society,  VIII,  259. 


170  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

slaves,  and  her  Mississippi  trade  with  its 
lumber  and  furs.  The  Committee's  agents 
and  the  naval  officers  abroad  hoped  to  en 
snare  the  enemy's  Baltic  trade,  the  Irish 
linen  ships,  the  Brazil  whaling  fleet,  and 
homeward  bound  East  Indiamen.  The 
sending  of  frigates  to  the  Coromandel  Coast 
to  intercept  the  enemy's  China  ships  and 
the  trade  of  India  was  seriously  considered. 
On  one  occasion  the  Committee  designed  to 
attack  English  vessels  bound  for  Canada 
with  cargoes  of  "Indian  goods."  But  gen 
erally  the  blows  were  aimed  at  the  fleets  of 
rich  merchantmen  returning  to  England, 
for  their  many  vessels  were  like  honey- 
laden  bees  flying  homeward  to  their  hives. 
The  British  fishing  fleet  on  the  Grand 
Banks  of  Newfoundland  and  the  homeward 
bound  West  Indiamen  were  found  most 
vulnerable.  It  is  not  practicable  for  a  com 
batant  to  prey  upon  commerce  far  from 
his  base  of  operations.  The  frequent  man 
ning  of  prizes  depletes  his  crews  and  compels 
him  to  make  an  early  return  home.  The 
chance  of  prizes  being  retaken  is  increased 
with  the  distance  they  must  travel  to 
reach  safe  ports.  The  operations  of  the 
Continental  vessels  in  European  waters 
were  made  possible  by  their  use  of  French 
ports  as  naval  stations.  In  attacking  Eng 
land's  commerce  the  Marine  Committee 
found  most  promise  of  substantial  reward 
by  directing  its  vessels  to  cruise  during  the 


Xiii'v  of  t/ic  American  Revolution   171 

summer  or  the  early  fall  some  leagues  to  the 
eastward  of  the  Bermudas  in  the  track  of 
the  homeward  bound  West  Indiamen,  laden 
with  rum,  sugar,  cotton,  coffee,  and  other 
Colonial  products.  These  fleets  sometimes 
consisted  of  as  many  as  200  merchantmen 
under  the  convoy  of  a  few  ships  of  war. 
Skilful  seamanship  found  it  comparatively 
easy  to  cut  out  a  few  sail.  In  three  in 
stances  Continental  vessels  made  captures 
which  netted  them  more  than  one  million 
dollars  each. 

Two  of  these  fortunate  cruises  wrere  made 
while  the  fleet  was  under  the  direction  of 
the  Marine  Committee.  On  May  4,  1779, 
the  Committee  wrote  to  the  Navy  Board 
at  Boston  that  it  desired  that  the  "  Con 
federacy,"  "  Warren,"  "  Queen  of  France/' 
"Ranger,"  " Jason,"  "Hibernia,"  and  two 
of  the  lately  built  packets  as  tenders,  and 
the  "Deane,"  which  it  should  send  from 
Philadelphia,  should  be  joined  together  and 
sail  in  company  to  the  southward  and  at 
tack  the  sea  force  of  the  enemy  on  the  coast 
of  Georgia.  After  routing  the  enemy  there, 
the  fleet  was  to  throw  itself  in  the  way  of 
the  West  India  ships,  bound  to  England. 
A  fortnight  later  the  Committee  wrote  that 
it  had  reason  to  lay  aside  the  expedition 
to  Georgia,  and  that  it  was  their  intention 
to  place  the  collected  naval  force  in  such 
manner  as  to  accomplish  the  double  pur 
pose  of  intercepting  the  enemy's  transports, 


coming  to  and  going  from  New  York,  and 
of  attacking  her  homeward  bound  West 
India  ships. 

In  accordance  with  the  latter  plan  of  the 
Committee,  sometime  during  the  summer  a 
fleet  was  sent  to  sea  from  Boston,  consist 
ing  of  the  "Providence",  28,  Captain  Abra 
ham  Whipple,  commodore  of  the  fleet,  the 
"Queen  of  France,"  28,  Captain  John  P. 
Rathburn,  and  the  "Ranger,"  18,  Captain 
Thomas  Simpson.  In  August  the  American 
vessels  fell  in  with  the  Jamaica  fleet,  bound 
for  London,  and  convoyed  by  a  32-gun 
frigate  and  three  other  armed  vessels.  The 
Americans  succeeded  in  cutting  out  from 
the  fleet  ten  large  merchantmen,  heavily 
laden  with  rum  and  sugar.  Of  the  ten  ves 
sels,  seven  arrived  at  Boston  and  one  at 
Cape  Ann.  The  names  of  these  eight  ships, 
whose  average  burden  was  285  tons,  were 
as  follows:  "  Holderness,"  "  Dawes," 
"George,"  "Friendship,"  "Blenheim,"  "The 
tis,"  "Fort  William,"  and  "  Neptune."  This 
was  one  of  the  richest  captures  which  the 
Continental  fleet  made  during  the  Revolu 
tion.  The  ships  with  their  cargoes  sold  for 
more  than  one  million  dollars.1  Early  in 

1.  Marine  Committee  Letter  Book,  Com 
mittee  to  Navy  Board  at  Boston,  May  4,  May 
20,  1779;  Continental  Journal  and  Weekly 
Advertiser,  August  26,  1779;  Boston  Gazette, 
September  20,  1779.  "Last  Saturday  noon 
this  town  was  alarmed  by  the  Appearance  of 
Seven  Topsail  Vessels  in  the  Offing,  which, 


Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution  173 

the  year  the  ship  "General  Gates"  and  the 
sloop  "Providence"  sent  prizes  into  Boston 
which  sold  for  £24Q,WQ.1 

The  Marine  Committee  threatened  and  at 
tacked  the  enemy's  coasts  and  towns  in  the 
British  Isles,  Canada,  and  the  West  Indies. 
Two  Continental  vessels  visited  the  mouth 
of  the  Senegal  river  on  the  west  coast  of  Af 
rica.  An  attack  on  the  shipping  of  the 
Bermudas  was  ordered  to  be  made,  if  it  was 
found  practicable.  Nassau,  New  Provi 
dence,  was  twice  captured  by  Continental 
vessels,  and  a  third  time  by  a  Spanish  fleet 
and  a  ship  of  war  of  the  South  Carolina 
navy.  Robert  Morris,  when  vice-president 
of  the  Marine  Committee,  planned  to  send 
a  fleet  of  five  vessels  against  the  British 
possessions  in  the  West  Indies  and  the  Flor- 
idas.  The  movements  of  Captains  Wickes, 
Conyngham,  and  Jones  in  attacking  and 
alarming  the  British  Isles  are  well  known.2 
however,  soon  subsided,  for  between  the  Hours 
of  Three  and  Five  in  the  Afternoon  were  safe 
anchored  in  this  Harbour  the  Continental 
Ships  of  War,  'Providence,'  'Queen  of  France  ' 
and  'Ranger,'  with  Four  Prize  Ships  laden 
with  Rum  and  Sugar,  being  part  of  a  Jamaica 
Fleet  bound  to  London  captured  by  the  above 
Vessels." — Continental  Journal  and  Weekly 
Advertiser,  August  26,  1779,  published  at 
Boston. 

1.  Publications  of  Rhode  Island  Historical 
Society,  VIII,  259. 

2.  See  Chapter  IX  and    X,  Naval    Duties 
of^  American  Representatives  in  Foreign  Coun 
tries. 


1/4  A'ai'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

These  expeditions  against  British  coasts, 
towns,  and  dependencies  had  several  ob 
jects  in  view.  One,  of  course,  was  the  cap 
ture  of  booty.  To  the  extent  that  the  ex 
peditions  were  directed  against  the  ship 
ping  and  commerce  of  the  attacked  ports, 
their  object  was  similar  to  that  of  fleets 
which  cruised  against  shipping  and  com 
merce  at  sea.  Another  object  is  discovered 
in  the  thought  of  Morris  when  he  planned  to 
attack  England  in  the  West  Indies.  Such 
a  move  Morris  believed  would  force  the  en 
emy  to  withdraw  part  of  his  fleet  from  the 
coasts  of  the  United  States  for  the  defence 
of  his  attacked  colonies;  and  to  the  extent 
that  he  did  so,  the  states  would  be  relieved. 
The  cruises  made  in  the  waters  around  the 
British  Isles  had  in  view  the  lessening  of 
the  prestige  of  Great  Britain,  the  shaking 
of  her  credit,  the  alarming  of  her  inhabi 
tants,  and  the  raising  of  her  marine  insur 
ance;  and  also  the  impressing  of  Europe 
with  the  power  and  courage  of  the  new 
American  nation,  and  perchance,  creating  a 
diversion  in  its  favor.  Both  a  psychological 
and  a  political  element  entered  into  the  pur 
pose  of  the  cruises  in  British  waters.  They 
realized  to  both  Britain  and  the  Continent 
the  existence  of  a  new  flag  and  a  new  state 
in  the  family  of  nations.' 

The  naval  plan  devised  by  Morris,  as 
vice-president  of  the  Marine  Committee, 
deserves  additional  notice.  It  was  to  be 


Xai'y  of  flic  American  Revolution   175 

put  into  operation  by  John  Paul  Jones,  with 
a  fleet  composed  of  the  "Alfred,"  "Colum 
bus,"  "Cabot,"  "Hampden,"  and  sloop 
"Providence."  Jones  was  first  to  proceed 
to  St.  Christopher  in  the  West  Indies,  which 
island  was  almost  defenceless,  capture  the 
cannon,  stores,  and  merchandise  there  de 
posited,  and  then  sail  for  Pensacola,  Florida. 
Morris  thought  Jones  might  find  it  best  to 
pass  along  the  south  side  of  Hispaniola,  and 
alarm  Jamaica  by  putting  in  to  some  of  its 
ports.  Arriving  at  Pensacola,  he  would 
find  it  defended  by  two  or  three  sloops 
of  war,  which  could  be  easily  silenced,  and 
the  town  would  fall  into  his  hands 
with  its  munitions  of  war,  including  one 
hundred  pieces  of  artillery.  Having  re 
duced  Pensacola,  Jones  was  to  send  a  brig- 
antine  and  sloop  to  cruise  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Mississippi,  in  order  to  waylay  the  Brit 
ish  merchantmen  leaving  there,  in  March 
and  April  with  cargoes  of  indigo,  rice,  to 
bacco,  skins,  and  furs,  to  the  value  of  £100,- 
000  sterling.  Returning  from  the  Gulf, 
he  might  alarm  St.  Augustine,  and  finally 
he  might  refit  in  Georgia,  or  South  or  North 
Carolina.  He  was  directed  to  carry  as 
many  marines  as  possible  for  his  opera 
tions  on  shore. 

Morris's  object  in  this  expedition  in 
volved  a  nice  bit  of  naval  policy.  He  pur 
posed  not  so  much  the  taking  of  booty,  as 
the  alarming  of  the  whole  British  nation, 


176  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

and  the  forcing  of  the  enemy  to  withdraw 
some  of  her  naval  forces  from  the  coast  of  the 
United  States.  "It  has  long  been  clear  to  me/' 
he  said,  "that  our  infant  fleet  cannot  protect 
our  coasts;  and  the  only  effectual  relief  it 
can  afford  us,  is  to  attack  the  enemy's  de 
fenceless  places,  and  thereby  oblige  them 
to  station  more  of  their  own  ships  in  their 
own  countries,  or  to  keep  them  employed 
in  following  ours,  and  either  way  we  are  re 
lieved  so  far  as  they  do  it."  Morris  pro 
posed  his  plan  as  a  substitute  for  one  of 
Jones,  which  contemplated  a  descent  on 
the  west  coast  of  Africa;  and  to  the  carrying 
out  of  which  the  Marine  Committee  had 
given  its  consent.  Morris  thought  that  the 
same  results  as  Jones  sought  could  be  ob 
tained  with  less  risk  by  "cruizing  Wind 
ward  of  Barbadoes  as  all  their  Guinea  Men 
fall  in  there."1 

The  Marine  Committee  naturally  planned 
and  carried  out  naval  enterprises  which 
had  in  view  two  or  more  forms  of  secondary 
operations.  Sometimes  it  ordered  its  ves 
sels  to  take  stations  at  sea  where  they 
would  be  in  position  to  intercept  both  the 
West  India  trade,  and  the  enemy's  trans 
ports  plying  between  New  York  and  Eng 
land.  Often  it  left  the  specific  object  of  a 
cruise  to  the  Navv  Board  at  Boston,  or  to 


1.  Marine  Committee  Letter  Book,  Morris 
to  Jones,  February,  1,  1777;  Morris  to  Com 
modore  Hopkins,  February  5,  1777. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  177 

the  commander  of  a  ship,  and  issued  merely 
the  general  order  to  proceed  to  sea  and 
cruise  against  the  enemy.  Any  plan  of  the 
Committee  which  was  directed  towards 
meeting  an  immediate  emergency  was  rarely 
carried  out.  The  movements  of  the  vessels 
were  rendered  uncertain  by  reason  of  de 
pleted  crews,  deficient  equipments,  and  the 
position  of  the  British  fleets.  The  Com 
mittee  was  often  in  the  dark  as  to  the  exact 
state  of  a  vessel  in  New  England  with  ref 
erence  to  its  preparation  for  sea.  Conse 
quently  it  made  many  plans  and  gave  many 
orders  which  could  not  be  put  into  opera 
tion.  The  telegraph,  cable,  and  rapid  postal 
services  have  revolutionized  the  direction  of 
naval  movements. 

In  prize-getting  the  Marine  Committee's 
most  successful  years  were  1776  and  1779. 
Beginning  with  1776  the  number  of  prizes 
taken  by  the  Continental  vessels  for  each 
year  of  the  Committee's  incumbency  was, 
respectively,  sixty,  twenty,  twenty,  and 
fifty.  The  fifty  prizes  captured  in  1779 
were  probably  more  valuable  than  the  one 
hundred  taken  in  the  other  three  years. 
As  regards  the  number  of  Continental  ves 
sels  lost,  the  years  1776  and  1779,  when  the 
fleet  was  decreased  by  but  three  ships, 
again  prove  to  be  the  most  fortunate  years. 
In  1777  and  1778  twenty-six  vessels,  ten  of 
which  were  frigates,  were  lost.1  With  the 

1.  Files  of  newspapers  for  the  period  of  the 
Revolution. 


178  Nai'\  of  the  American  Revolution 

memory  of  the  misfortunes  of  the  past  two 
years  in  mind,  well  might  the  Marine  Com 
mittee  write,  towards  the  end  of  1778,  of 
"the  bad  success  that  hath  hitherto  attend 
ed  our  Navy."  In  May,  1778,  it  wrote  to 
the  Navy  Board  at  Boston,  that  the  "Com 
mittee  are  entirely  of  Opinion  with  you  that 
it  will  be  proper  to  send  out  a  Collected  force 
to  Cruise  against  our  enemies  that  we  re 
cover  the  injured  reputation  of  our  Navy 
and  the  losses  we  have  sustained."1 

In  1779  the  navy. retrieved  the  bad  effects 
of  some  of  its  disasters.  Its  changed  for 
tunes  can  in  part  be  easily  accounted  for. 
The  transference  of  the  scene  of  war  to  the 
Southern  states  late  in  1778,  removed  a 
part  of  the  British  land  and  sea  forces  from 
the  North,  and  thereby  gave  the  Naval  De 
partment  a  freer  hand  in  its  operations, 
and  rendered  the  movements  of  the  fleet 
less  perilous.  The  Department  this  year 
had  larger  success  in  manning  and  equip 
ping  its  fleet,  It  was,  therefore,  able  not 
only  to  send  the  armed  vessels  to  sea  more 
frequently,  but  also  to  send  several  of  them 
cruising  in  company.  Such  little  fleets  had 
a  decided  advantage  over  single  cruisers, 
both  in  defensive  and  offensive  operations. 
No  doubt,  too,  the  experiences  and  past  fail 
ures  of  the  navy  were  now  telling  in  a  better 


1.  Marine  Committee  Letter  Book,  Com 
mittee  to  Navy  Board  at  Boston,  May  8,  No 
vember  9,  1778. 


Nary  of  the  American  Revolution  179 

understanding  of  naval  tactics,  and  were 
bringing  about  a  proper  subordination  and 
concert  of  action  between  officers  and  men. 
Possibly,  something  should  be  attributed 
to  the  Department's  increased  experience 
in  marine  affairs. 

The  reader  has  probably  already  drawn 
parallels,  far  from  fanciful,  between  the  so 
lutions  of  the  naval  problems  of  the  Revolu 
tion  made  by  the  Marine  Committee  and 
those  of  the  Spanish-American  war  made  by 
the  Naval  Board  of  Strategy  at  Washington. 
The  naval  problems  presented  to  the  two 
bodies  were  in  certain  respects  widely  differ 
ent.  Equally  striking  similarities  appear. 
In  both  wars  the  United  States  was  fighting 
a  European  power  with  possessions  in  the 
West  Indies  and  in  the  Asiatic  seas.  The 
attacks  on  Nassau  and  Morris's  proposed 
expedition  against  the  British  West  Indies 
correspond  to  the  movements  of  the  Ameri 
can  fleet  in  the  West  Indies  during  the  late 
war.  The  operations  of  Wickes,  Conyn- 
gham,  and  Jones  off  the  coasts  of  the  British 
Isles  are  matched  by  the  proposed  descent 
.on  the  Spanish  coast  in  1898.  The  plan 
made  in  1777  to  send  a  fleet  of  frigates  to 
Mauritius  and  from  thence  to  operate  against 
the  English  trade  in  the  Indian  seas  looks 
singularly  like  Admiral  Dewey's  movement 
from  Hong  Kong  against  Manila. 

The  hope  is  to  be  cherished  that  America 
will  never  again  cross  swords  with  her  kin 


180  lYarv  of  the  American  Revolution 

beyond  seas,  but  if  moved  by  some  untoward 
fate  she  should,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that  a  Naval  Board  of  Strategy  at  Washing 
ton  will  devise  plans  of  naval  attack  and  de 
fence  quite  similar  to  those  of  the  Marine 
Committee.  The  weak  spots  in  a  nation's 
armor  often  prove  to  be  its  outlying  depend 
encies,  especially  when  they  are  situated 
near  the  enemy's  coast.  The  principles  of 
naval  strategy  which  led  the  Marine  Com 
mittee  either  to  attack,  or  to  plan  to  attack, 
Canada,  the  Newfoundland  fisheries,  the 
Bermudas,  and  the  British  West  Indies,  are 
still  operative,  notwithstanding  the  vast 
changes  which  the  past  century  and  a  quar 
ter  have  witnessed  in  the  methods  of  naval 
warfare,  and  in  the  distribution  of  the  terri 
tory  of  the  Western  Hemisphere  among  na 
tions,  new  as  well  as  old.  In  a  world  of 
change  the  fundamental  principles  of  naval 
strategy  remain  immutable. 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE  BOARD  OF  ADMIRALTY 

It  is  speaking  tritely,  although  accurately, 
to  say  that  our  present  executive  depart 
ments  at  Washington  did  not  spring  into 
perfect  being  in  1789  like  panoplied  Minerva 
from  the  head  of  Jove.  Not  a  little  of  the 
interest  and  value  of  a  study  of  the  admin 
istration  of  the  Revolution  comes  from  the 
fact  that  the  administrative  practices  and 
experiences  of  this  period  gave  rootage  to 
the  later  and  more  perfect  executive  organs. 
The  development  of  the  Continental  Naval 
Department,  both  in  the  variety  and  in  the 
character  of  its  forms,  is  typical  of  that  of 
the  other  administrative  departments  of 
the  Revolution.  We  have  already  seen  how 
the  naval  business  of  the  Continental  Con 
gress  was  first  vested  in  the  small  Naval 
Committee;  and  how  this  Committee,  early 
in  1776,  was  overshadowed  and  absorbed 
by  the  more  numerous  and  more  active  Ma 
rine  Committee.  We  now  come  to  the  third 
step  in  this  evolution,  the  superseding  of  the 
Marine  Committee  by  the  Board  of  Admiralty . 

The  Marine  Committee  had  proved  slow, 


182  Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

cumbrous,  inexpert,  and  irresponsible.  The 
wiser  members  of  Con-gress  had  long  seen 
that  it  was  a  prime  defect  in  governmental 
practice  to  add  to  the  duties  of  a  legislative 
committee,  those  of  an  executive  office;  for 
it  threw  upon  the  same  men  too  much  work 
of  too  diverse  kinds,  and  it  removed  from 
the  administrative  organ  its  most  essential 
attributes  of  permanency,  technical  skill, 
and  responsibility.  In  December,  1776, 
Robert  Morris  had  urged  the  employment 
of  a  corps  of  executives  chosen  outside  the 
membership  of  Congress,  as  a  requisite  to  a 
proper  and  orderly  management  of  the  busi 
ness  of  the  Revolutionary  government.1 

As  early  as  February  ^26,  1777,  William 
Ellery,  a  member  of  the  Marine  Committee 
from  Rhode  Island,  wrote  to  William  Ver- 
non  at  Providence,  who  was  soon  to  become 
a  member  of  the  Navy  Board  at  Boston, 
that  a  proper  Board  of  Admiralty  was  very 
much  wanted.  "The  members  of  Congress," 
he  said,  "are  unacquainted  with  this  Depart 
ment.  As  one  of  the  Marine  Committee  I 

1.  Force's  Archives,  5th,  III,  1336,  Robert 
Morris  to  American  Commissioners  at  Paris, 
December  21,  1776.  Morris  wrote  as  follows: 
"So  long  as  that  respectable  body  persist  in 
the  attempt  to  execute,  as  well  as  to  deliber 
ate  on  their  business,  it  never  will  be  done  as 
it  ought,  and  this  has  been  urged  many  and 
many  a  time  by  myself  and  others,  but  some 
of  them  do  not  like  to  part  with  power,  or  to 
pay  others  for  doing  what  they  cannot  do 
themselves  " 


A'fli'v  of  the  American  Revolution  183 

sensibly  feel  my  ignorance  in  this  respect. 
Under  a  mortifying  Sense  of  this  I  wrote  to 
you  for  Information  in  this  Matter.  Books 
cannot  be  had  here;  and  I  should  have  been 
glad  to  have  been  pointed  to  proper  Authors 
on  this  Subject  when  I  should  be  in  a  Place 
where  Books  may  be  had."1  Early  in  1779 
when  Congress  was  groping  in  search  of  a 
more  efficient  naval  executive,  Ellery  again 
expressed  regret  at  the  lack  of  technical 
skill  in  the  management  of  the  navy.  He 
said  that  the  marine  affairs  would  never  be 
"well  conducted  so  long  as  the  supreme  di 
rection  of  them  is  in  the  hands  of  Judges, 
Lawyers,  Planters,  &c."2  Even  before  Mor 
ris  and  Ellery  had  declared  for  better  exec 
utives,  John  Paul  Jones,  while  distressed  by  a 
loss  in  naval  rank  caused  by  the  appointing 
and  the  placing  above  him  of  certain  "polit 
ical  skippers,"  wrote  that  efficient  naval 
officers  could  never  be  obtained,  until  Con 
gress  "in  their  wisdom  see  proper  to  appoint 
a  Board  of  Admiralty  competent  to  deter 
mine  impartially  the  respective  merits  and 
abilities  of  their  officers,  and  to  superintend, 
regulate,  and  point  out  all  the  motions  and 
operations  of  the  navy."3 

1.  Publications  of  Rhode  Island  Historical 
Society,  VIII,   205,  Papers  of  William  Vernon 
and  Navy  Board. 

2.  Ibid.,  257,  Ellery  to  Vernon,  March  23, 
1779. 

3.  Force's  Archives,  5th,  II,  1106,  Jones  to 
Morris,  October  16,  1776. 


184  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

During  1778  and  1779  Congress  hit  upon 
a  system  of  executive  departments  that  did 
little  violence  to  its  lust  for  power,  and  at 
the  same  time  secured  a  permanent  body 
of  administrators  and  advisors.  This  was 
the  system  of  executive  boards,  composed 
jointly  of  commissioners  selected  outside 
the  membership  of  Congress,  and  of  mem 
bers  of  Congress.  Congress  and  the  Marine 
Committee  probably  derived  a  part  of  their 
knowledge  of  executive  boards  from  the 
practice  of  the  English  government  and  of 
the  states.  "Board  of  Admiralty"  was  the 
name  during  the  Revolution,  as  now,  of  the 
British  Naval  Office.  Pennsylvania,  Vir 
ginia,  and  South  Carolina  had  early  in  the 
Revolution  established  "Navy  Boards/' 
In  October,  1777,  Congress  had  formed  a 
Board  of  War  composed  of  five  commis 
sioners.  In  October,  1778,  Congress  at 
tempted  to  clip  the  wings  of  this  Board  and 
bring  it  under  Congressional  control  by  sub 
stituting  two  members  of  Congress  for  two 
of  its  five  commissiojiers.1  On  July  30, 
1779,  a  Board  of  Treasury  was  constituted 
on  exactly  this  plan,  being  composed  of 
three  commissioners  and  two  members  of 
Congress-.2 

In  the  spring  of  1779  the  feeling  was  gen 
eral  that  some  change  must  be  made  in  the 


1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Octo 
ber  29,  1778. 

2.  Ibid.,  July  30,  1779. 


A'arv  of  the  American  Revolution   185 

management  of  the  navy.  Both  1777  and 
1778  had  been  lean,  empty,  and  disastrous 
years  for  the  Continental  fleet.  The  blame 
for  this  failure  was  placed  upon  the  Marine 
Committee  and  the  naval  commanders.  It 
was  in  April,  1779,  that  Washington  wrote 
to  John  Jay  asking  questions  and  making 
suggestions  about  the  management  of  the 
navy,  which  may  be  briefly  summarized  as 
follows:  What  are  the  reasons  for  keeping 
the  Continental  vessels  in  port?  Had  not 
Congress  better  lend  them  to  "  commanders 
of  known  bravery  and  capacity  "  for  a  limit 
ed  term?  If  additional  encouragement  is 
necessary  in  order  to  induce  seamen  to  en 
list,  why  not  give  them  the  whole  of  their 
captures?  Great  advantage  might  result 
from  placing  the  whole  fleet  under  "a  man 
of  ability  and  authority  commissioned  to 
act  as  commodore  or  admiral."  Under  the 
present  system  the  Continental  ships  are 
not  only  very  expensive  and  totally  useless, 
but  sometimes  they  require  a  land  force  to 
protect  them.1 

This  arraignment  of  the  navy  is  some 
what  severe.  The  last  clause  in  the  above 
paragraph  refers  to  an  incident  which  took 
place  at  New  London  in  the  spring  of  1776. 
The  reader  may  recall  that  Commodore  Hop 
kins  put  into  this  port  on  his  return  from 


1.  Johnston,  Correspondence  and  Public 
Papers  of  John  Jay,  I,  207-08,  Washington  to 
Jay,  April,  1779. 


186  Naz'\'  of  the  American  Revolution 

New  Providence  and  just  after  his  unfor 
tunate  engagement  with  the  "Glasgow." 
He  then  received  a  temporary  loan  from 
Washington  of  one  hundred  and  seventy 
troops,  with  whom,  for  the  time  being,  he 
replenished  his  depleted  crews.  He  kept 
the  troops  less  than  six  weeks. 

In  his  reply  to  Washington's  letter,  Jay 
ascribed  the  naval  inefficiency  to  a  defec 
tive  Naval  Department.  He  said:  "While 
the  maritime  affairs  of  the  continent  con 
tinue  under  the  direction  of  a  committee, 
they  will  be  exposed  to  all  of  the  conse 
quences  of  want  of  system,  attention,  and 
knowledge.  The  marine  committee  con 
sists  of  a  delegate  from  each  state;  it  fluc 
tuates,  new  members  constantly  coming  and 
old  ones  going  out;  three  or  four,  indeed, 
have  remained  in  it  from  the  beginning;  and 
few  members  understand  even  the  state  of 
our  naval  affairs,  or  have  time  or  inclina 
tion  to  attend  to  them.  But  why  is  not 
this  system  changed?  It  is  in  my  opinion, 
inconvenient  to  the  family  compact."1  The 
"family  compact"  is  supposed  to  refer  to 
the  Lees.  During  the  Revolution  the  Lees 
and  the  Adamses  formed  the  nucleus  of  a 
faction,  which  was  generally  opposed  to  con 
structive  legislation  in  the  field  of  adminis 
tration. 

1.  Johnston,  Correspondence  and  Public 
Papers  of  John  Jay,  I,  209,  Jay  to  Washing 
ton,  April  26,  1779. 


Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution  187 

When  this  letter  of  Jay's  was  written  a 
new  naval  system  was  forming.1  On  June 
9  Congress  resolved  to  vest  in  "  commis 
sioners  all  business  relating  to  the  marine 
of  these  United  States."2  Apparently  this 
resolution  of  Congress  meant  that  the  naval 
affairs  were  to  be  given  over  to  a  board 
chosen  outside  the  membership  of  Congress; 
if  so,  Congress  soon  retracted  it.  On  Octo 
ber  1,  1779,  Congress  discharged  the  com 
mittee  that  had  had  the  new  project  in 
hand,  and  directed  the  Marine  Committee 
"to  prepare  and  report  a  plan  of  regulations, 
for  conducting  the  naval  affairs  of  the  United 
States."3  The  Marine  Committee  reported 
on  October  28,  1779;  thereupon,  Congress 
passed  resolutions  making  provision  for  a 
Board  of  Admiralty,  "to  be  subject  in  all 
cases  to  Congress."  These  resolutions  were 
in  important  respects  based  upon  those  of 
October  17  and  November  24,  1777,  estab 
lishing  a  Board  of  War.4  This  was  natural, 
as  the  work  of  a  war  and  a  naval  office  are 
quite  similar.  In  the  composition  of  the 
two  boards  there  was  a  vital  difference.  The 
Board  of  War,  as  has  been  said,  consisted 
of  five  commissioners;  the  Beard  of  Admir- 

1.  Marine   Committee    Letter   Book,   Com 
mittee  to   Navy   Board   at    Boston,   April   27 
1779. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,   Tune 
9,  1779. 

3.  Ibid.,  October  1,  1779. 

4.  Ibid.,  October  17,  November  24,  1777. 


1 88  A'ttrv  of  the  American  Revolution 

ally  consisted  of  three  commissioners  and 
two  members  of  Congress^  being  modeled 
after  the  Board  of  Treasury.  Any  three 
members  of  the  Board  of  Admiralty  were 
empowered  to  form  a  quorum.  No  two 
members  were  permitted  to  come  from  the 
same  state.  The  Board  must  have  its  office 
in  the  same  town  in  which  Congress  was 
sitting.  It  selected  its  clerks,  but  Congress 
>chose  its  secretary. 

/  The  po\vers  and  duties  of  the  Board  of 
I  Admiralty  were  practically  ^he  same  as 
Ithose  of  the  Marine  Committee^  The  Board 
Vras  to  order  and  direct  the  n/ovements  of 
all  ships  and  vessels  of  war.  It  was  to  su 
perintend  and  direct  the  navy  boards  and 
see  that  they  kept  fair  entries  and  proper 
accounts  of  all  the  business  transacted  by 
them.  It  was  to  keep  a  complete  and  ac 
curate  register  of  the  officers  of  the  navy, 
giving  their  rank  and  the  date  of  their  com 
missions;  these  were  to  be  signed  by  the 
President  of  Congress  and  countersigned 
by  the  secretary  of  the  Board.  The  Board 
was  to  have  the  care  and  direction  of  the 
marine  prisoners.  It  was  to  obtain  regular 
and  exact  returns  of  all  warlike  stores, 
clothing,  provisions,  and  miscellaneous  arti 
cles  belonging  to  the  marine  department. 
Lastly  the  Board  of  Admiralty  was  to  " exe 
cute  all  such  matters  as  shall  be  directed, 
and  give  their  opinion  on  all  such  subjects 
as  shall  be  referred  to  them  by  Congress, 


Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution  189 

or  as  they  may  think  necessary  for  the  bet 
ter  regulation  and  improvement  of  the  navy 
of  the  United  States;  and  in  general  to  super 
intend  and  direct  all  the  branches  of  the 
marine  department."1 

The  officers  of  the  navy  were  enjoined  to 
obey  the  directions  of  the  Board  of  Admir 
alty.  The  proceedings,  records,  and  papers 
of  the  Board  were  to  be  open  at  all  times 
to  the  inspection  of  the  members  of  Con 
gress.  The  Board  of  Admiralty  was  or 
dered  to  examine  at  once  the  unsettled  ac 
counts  of  the  navy  boards  and  naval  agents, 
and  report  thereon  to  Congress.  It  was 
further  directed  to  form  proper  plans  for 
increasing  the  naval  force  of  the  United 
States  and  for  the  better  regulating  of  the 
same. 

The  salary  of  each  commissioner  wras 
fixed  at  $14,000,  and  that  of  the  secretary 
of  the  Board  at  $8,000  a  year.  On 
September  13,  1780,  these  salaries  were  de 
creased  to  $1,850  and  to  $1,100  a  year, 
respectively,  to  be  now  paid  quarterly  in  spe 
cie  or  its  equivalent.2  When  Congress  in 
creased  the  salary  of  its  Commissioners  of 
the  Treasury  from  $1,850  to  $2,000,  the 
Commissioners  of  Admiralty,  exhibiting 
that  delicate  sense  of  the  fitness  of  more 
pay  which  characterizes  the  employees  of 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Octo 
ber  28,  1779. 

2.  Ibid.,  September     13,    1780. 


190  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

governments,  petitioned  for  a  similar  in 
crease  in  their  salaries;1  and  Congress,  in 
accord  with  its  subsequent  character  under 
the  Constitution,  refused  a  favor  to  the 
navy  which  it  granted  to  a  more  popular 
branch  of  its  public  service.2  The  Con 
gressional  members  received  no  pay  for 
their  services  on  the  Board. 

When  Congress  came  to  select  Commis 
sioners  of  Admiralty,  it  found  no  easy  task. 
Men  who  were  eager  for  distinction  and 
honor  felt  that  they  were  cultivating  a  surer 
field  in  their  home  governments  or  in  the 
army.  The  prestige  of  the  Continental  gov 
ernment  was  now  declining.  The  dilution 
of  salaries  caused  by  the  depreciation  of 
the  currency  lessened  the  attractiveness  of 
the  Continental  offices.  Employees  of  Con 
gress  found  it  hard  to  support  their  families 
on  their  pay.  Then  too,  the  navy  business 
had  become  a  thankless  and  disheartening 
task.  The  class  of  men  who  will  accept  a 
disagreeable  office  with  little  pay  and  no 
glory  is  a  small  one  at  any  time. 

The  first  three  commissioners  elected  by 
Congress  were  William  Whipple  of  New 
Hampshire,  chairman  of  the  Marine  Com 
mittee,  Thomas  Waring  of  South  Carolina, 
and  George  Bryan  of  Pennsylvania.  Each 

1.  Force  Transcripts,  Library  of  Congress, 
37,  p.  207,    Report    ^f    Board    of    Admiralty, 
April  12,  1781. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  July 
7,  1781. 


Nary  of  the  American  Revolution  191 

declined.  On  December  7  Francis  Lewis 
of  New  York  was  chosen  commissioner,  and 
on  the  next  day  he  accepted  the  office. 
Congress  on  the  3rd  had  named  the  two 
Congressional  members  of  the  Board,  Wil 
liam  Floyd  of  New  York,  and  James  Forbes 
of  Maryland.  The  appointment  of  Lewis 
vacated  the  position  of  Floyd,  as  two  mem 
bers  from  the  same  state  could  not  serve 
on  the  Board.  William  Ellery  of  Rhode 
Island  was  now  elected  as  the  second  Con 
gressional  member.  Congress  had  already 
chosen  John  Brown,  the  secretary  of  the 
Marine  Committee,  to  be  secretary  of  the 
Board  of  Admiralty.  Lewis,  Forbes,  and 
Ellery  were  sufficient  to  organize  the  Board. 
Accordingly  on  December  8,  1779,  Congress 
resolved  "that  all  matters  heretofore  re 
ferred  to  the  marine  committee  be  trans 
mitted  to  the  board  of  admiralty."1  On 
December  10  the  Board  of  Admiralty  wrote 
to  the  Navy  Board  at  Boston,  informing  it 
of  the  dissolution  of  the  Marine  Committee, 
and  directing  it  to  address  in  the  future  all 
letters  and  applications  relating  to  the  navy 
to  the  "  Commissioners  of  the  Admiralty  of 
the  United  States."2 

Upon  the  organization  of  the  Board  of 
Admiralty,  its  difficulties  in  obtaining  quo- 

1.  Journals   of   Continental   Congress,    No 
vember  26,   December  3,   7,   8,    1779. 

2.  Marine  Committee  Letter  Book,   Board 
of  Admiralty  to  Navy  Board  at  Boston,  De 
cember  10,  1779. 


192  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

rums  began;  and  the  troubles  of  Congress 
in  its  search  for  additional  commissioners 
continued.  On  January  22,  1780,  Congress 
gave  Brigadier-General  Thomas  Mifflin  of. 
Pennsylvania  an  opportunity  to  decline  a 
commissionership.1  On  March  21  Lewis  was 
complaining  to  Congress  that  Forbes  was 
sick,  and  that  consequently  there  had  been 
no  Board  since  the  4th  instant.  He  hoped 
Congress  would  fill  up  the  vacancy  and  pre 
vent  the  navy  business  from  being  longer 
suspended.2  On  the  death  of  Forbes  on 
March  25,  Congress  elected  James  Madison 
to  fill  his  place.  Madison  had  but  recently 
arrived  at  Philadelphia  as  a  delegate  from 
Virginia. 

In  June,  1780,  Lewis  was  again  in  trouble 
and  was  writing  to  Congress.  He  conceived 
that  the  addition  of  members  of  Congress 
to  the  Board  of  Admiralty  was  principally 
intended  to  lay  such  information  before 
Congress  from  time  to  time  as  the  Board 
desired  to  give,  to  explain  its  reports,  and 
in  the  absence,  or  during  the  sickness,  of 
a  commissioner  to  make  a  quorum.  He 
said  that,  notwithstanding  the  attention 
which  Madison  and  Ellery  had  been  dis 
posed  to  give,  their  necessary  attendance 


1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Janu 
ary  22,  1780. 

2.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  78,  XIV,  309,  Lewis  to  President  of  Con 
gress,  March  21,  1780. 


A'(7T'v  of  tJie  American  Revolution  193 

on  Congress  did  not  admit  of  their  being 
daily  and  constantly  present  at -the  sessions 
of  the  Board;  that  Ellery  had  been  super 
seded  in  Congress;  and  that  at  present  there 
was  no  Board  for  lack  of  a  quorum.1  Con 
gress  once  more  came  to  the  rescue  of  Lewis 
and  his  Board  by  appointing  Ellery  and 
Thomas  Woodford  as  commissioners.2  El 
lery  at  once  accepted,  but  Woodford  for 
some  reason  declined  the  appointment. 
Congress  never  obtained  a  third  commis 
sioner.  In  the  fall  of  1780  Daniel  Hunting- 
ton  of  Connecticut  and  Whitmill  Hill  of 
North  Carolina  were  the  Congressional  mem 
bers  of  the  Board.  On  their  being  sup 
planted  in  November,  1780,  by  new  dele 
gates  to  Congress  from  their  respective 
states,  it  took  the  urgent  solicitation  of 
Lewis  to  get  Congress  to  fill  the  vacancies.3 
When  the  Board  was  discontinued  in  July, 
1781,  it  had  but  one  Congressional  member, 
Daniel  of  St.  Thomas  Jenifer  of  Maryland. 
To  all  intents  and  purposes  Lewis  and 
Ellery  were  the  Board  of  Admiralty ;  and  in 
many  respects  they  were  well  qualified  for 
their  positions.  Both  were  able  men,  though 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  78,  XIV,  337-43,   349,    Lewis  to    Presi 
dent  of  Congress,  June  6,  June  12,  1780. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  June 
23,  1780. 

3.  Force  Transcripts,  Library  of  Congress, 
37,  pp.   291,  294,   Lewis  to  President  of  Con- 
gress,  November  4,  6,  1780. 


194  A'at'31  of  the  American  Revolution 

not  brilliant.  Both  had  passed  the  meridian 
of  life;  Lewis  was  in  his  sixty-seventh  year, 
and  Ellery  in  his  fifty-second.  Both  had 
taken  prominent  parts  in  the  Revolutionary 
counsels  in  their  respective  states;  both  had 
been  members  of  the  Continental  Congress 
and  of  the  Marine  Committee.  Both  were 
among  the  immortal  Signers  of  the  Declar 
ation  of  Independence.  Lewis  had  amassed 
a  fortune  as  an  importing  merchant  in  New 
York,  and  had  served  in  the  French  and 
Indian  war.  Ellery  had  been  a  merchant, 
and  later  a  lawyer  in  Newport,  Rhode  Isl 
and.  Both  men  were  interested  in  naval 
affairs,  and  had  rendered  good  service  on 
the  Marine  Committee.  Lewis's  work  on 
the  Board  of  Admiralty  exceeded  that  of 
Ellery. 

From  the  first  the  Board  of  Admiralty 
was  more  dependent  on  Congress  than  the 
Marine  Committe  had  been.  Congress,  al 
ways  jealous  of  its  prerogatives,  naturally 
permitted  a  freer  exercise  of  power  to  a 
committee  of  its  own  members,  than  to  a 
mixed  board,  whose  work  was  almost  en 
tirely  that  of  commissioners  selected  out 
side  the  membership  of  Congress.  To  the 
Board's  dependence  on  Congress  for  its 
organization  was  added  that  for  means  to 
carry  out  its  naval  program.  The  fre 
quency  with  which  it  went  to  Congress  ask 
ing  for  quorums  and  money  indicates  its 
helplessness  and  weakness. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  195 

The  work  of  the  Board  of  Admiralty  was, 
generally  speaking,  that  of  the  Marine  Com 
mittee  under  a  change  of  name.  It  man 
aged  the  dwindling  business  of  the  navy 
from  December,  1779,  until  July,  1781.  It 
was  served  by  the  Navy  Boards  and  naval 
agents  of  its  predecessor,  the  Marine  Com 
mittee.  Immediately  after  its  organization, 
the  Board  of  Admiralty,  in  compliance  with 
the  resolutions  of  Congress,  urged  the  Navy 
Boards  and  naval  agents  to  transmit  to  it 
accurate  accounts  of  their  transactions  up 
to  December  31,  1779.  Owing  to  the  loose 
methods  of  business  wrhich  obtained  during 
the  Revolution,  the  agents  of  the  Board 
found  it  in  most  cases  impossible  to  make 
such  statements. 

The  failure  of  the  agents  properly  to  re 
port  their  accounts,  together  with  a  diminu 
tion  in  the  naval  business  of  Congress,  now 
led  to  some  decrease  in  naval  machinery. 
In  August,  1780,  the  Board  recommended 
that  the  two  Philadelphia  prize  agents  be 
discharged,  since  it  had  not  been  able  to 
induce  them  by  means  of  its  repeated  writ 
ten  and  verbal  requests  to  exhibit  their  ac 
counts.  Congress  now  discontinued  their 
office  and  gave  their  work  to  the  Board  of 
Admiralty.1  In  the  winter  of  1780-81  the 

1.  Force  Transcripts,  Library  of  Congress, 
37,  p.  125,  Board  of  Admiralty  to  President  of 
Congress,  August  14,  1780;  Journals  of  Conti 
nental  Congress,  August  18,  1780. 


196  Navy  of  the  America)!  Revolution 

resignations  of  Winder  and  Wharton,  as 
commissioners  of  the  Navy  Board  at  Phila 
delphia,  were  accepted  by  Congress,  and  the 
duties  of  this  Board  were  vested  in  its  re 
maining  member,  James  Read.1  On  May  7, 
1781,  Congress  accepted  the  resignation  of 
Deshon  of  the  Navy  Board  at  Boston.2  The 
work  of  the  Navy  Boards  and  naval  agents 
had  now  greatly  diminished.  Already  the 
settling  of  naval  accounts  was  becoming  one 
of  their  principal  tasks.  After  1779  there 
were  few  Continental  prizes  to  libel.  Upon 
the  resignation  of  the  naval  agents  at  Phila 
delphia,  those  at  Boston,  Portsmouth,  and 
New  London  were  the  only  ones  of  conse 
quence. 

The  Board  of  Admiralty  was  called  to  act 
upon  divers  letters,  petitions,  and  memor 
ials,  differing  little  from  the  similar  com 
munications  which  Congress  referred  to  the 
Marine  Committee.  It  also  fell  to  its  lot  to 
prepare  and  report  not  a  little  important 
legislation.  The  reports  of  the  Board, 
which  were  in  writing,  were  chiefly  the  work 
of  Lewis  and  Ellery,  and  were  presented  to 
Congress  by  the  Congressional  members  of 
the  Board.  Congress  usually  referred  these 
reports  to  a  committee,  before  it  discussed 
them  or  took  final  action  upon  them.  Not 
a  few  of  the  reports  of  the  Board  were, 


1.  Journals   of   Continental   Congress,    De 
cember  5,  1780;  January  11,  1781. 

2.  Ibid.,  May  7,  1781. 


A'az-v  of  the  American  Revolution   197 

however,  pigeon-holed  by  Congress,  and  no 
action  was  taken  upon  them.  The  naval  leg 
islation  of  Congress  during  the  incumbency 
of  the  Board  of  Admiralty  was  in  part  ren 
dered  necessary  by  the  decline  of  the  navy. 
Certain  other  legislation  was  caused  by  the 
putting  into  effect  of  the  Articles  of  Con 
federation  on  March  1,  1781;  and  a  few 
Congressional  resolutions  on  naval  affairs 
may  be  attributed  to  the  special  legislative 
activity  and  enterprise  of  the  Board  of  Ad 
miralty. 

In  January,  1780,  Congress  on  the  recom 
mendation  of  the  Board  of  Admiralty  passed 
a  resolution  wrhich  was  no  doubt  in  harmony 
with  administrative  economy  and  thrift, 
but  which  pressed  hard  upon  many  naval 
officers.  The  pay  of  all  officers  in  the  navy 
not  in  actual  service  was  at  once  to  cease. 
Their  commissions  were  to  be  deposited  with 
the  most  convenient  Navy  Board,  until  the 
officers  should  be  again  called  into  service; 
each  officer  was  to  retain  his  rank.1  This 
was  merely  a  courteous  wTay  of  disestablish 
ing  the  larger  part  of  the  navy.  Owing  to 
the  capture  and  destruction  of  many  Conti 
nental  vessels,  most  of  the  naval  officers 
were  not  in  actual  service.  The  number  of 
commissioned  officers  in  actual  service  in 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  37,  pp.  175-77,  Report  of  Board  of  Ad 
miralty,  January  24,  1780;  Journals  of  Conti 
nental  Congress,  January  22,  January  25, 
1780. 


198  A'aT'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

both  navy  and  marine  corps  at  this  time 
was  about  twenty.  It  is  clear  that  the 
Continental  Congress  was  unfriendly  to  the 
theory  that  an  employee  of  a  government 
has  a  vested  right  in  his  office. 

On  July  1 1 , 1780,  naval  salaries,  subsistence 
money,  and  bounties  were  ordered  to  be 
paid  in  specie;  forty  Continental  dollars 
were  considered  equal  to  one  of  specie.  On  the 
same  day,  in  order  that  the  depleted  crews 
might  perchance  be  recruited,  Congress  voted 
a  bounty  of  twenty  dollars  to  able,  and  ten 
dollars  to  ordinary  seamen  who  should  en 
list  in  the  navy  for  twelve  months.1  On 
August  7  it  provided  that  officers  who  had 
served  aboard  vessels  of  twenty  guns  or  up 
wards,  and  who  should  afterwards  be  de 
tailed  to  vessels  of  less  armament,  should 
suffer  no  diminution  in  pay.2  These  pro 
visions  all  indicate  a  declining  government 
and  navy. 

On  February  8,  1780,  the  Board  of  Ad 
miralty  secured  the  re-enaction  of  the  reso 
lutions  of  May  6,  1778,  concerning  the  hold 
ing  of  courts  of  enquiry  and  courts-martial.3 
The  most  important  provision  of  these  reso 
lutions,  it  is  recalled,  lessened  the  require- 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  July 
11,   1780;  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental 
Congress,  37,  pp.  261-63,  Report  of  Board  of 
Admiralty,  July  10,  1780. 

2.  Journals   of   Continental   Congress,   Au 
gust  7,  1780. 

3.  Ibid.,  February  8,  1780. 


Xai'v  of  the  American  Revolution  199 

ments  for  the  membership  of  courts-martial 
as  fixed  by  Adams's  rules.  On  the  partial 
disestablishment  of  the  navy  in  January  it 
became  increasingly  difficult  to  assemble 
courts-martial  composed  entirely  of  naval 
officers.  The  only  naval  captain  cashiered 
by  a  court-martial  held  under  the  direction 
of  the  Board  of  Admiralty  was  the  eccentric 
Peter  Landais.1 

On  May  4,  1780,  the  Board  of  Admiralty 
reported  and  Congress  adopted  the  following 
device  for  a  seal:  "The  arms,  thirteen  bars 
mutually  supporting  each  other,  alternate 
red  and  white,  in  a  blue  field,  and  sur 
mounted  by  an  anchor  proper.  The  crest 
a  ship  under  sail.  The  motto,  sustentans 
et  sustentatus.  Legend,  U.  S.  A.  Sigil. 
Naval. "2  The  anchor  and  ship  under  sail 
are  still  a  part  of  the  seal  of  the  Department 
of  the  Navy.  Instead  of  the  arms,  motto, 
and  former  legend,  there  now  appear  an 
eagle  with  outstretched  wings,  and  the 
words  "Navy  Department,  United  States 
of  America." 

On  April  20,  1780,  Congress  adopted  a 
new  form  of  commission  for  naval  officers, 
which  the  Board  of  Admiralty  had  drafted.3 
This  varied  little  from  the  one  which  had 
been  used  since  the  beginning  of  the  Revo- 


1       See  Chapter  X,  pages  298-300. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  May 
4,  1780. 

3.  Ibid.,  April  20,  1780. 


2OO  Nai'\  of  the  American  Revolution 

lution.  With  slight  changes  in  phraseology 
made  to  adapt  it  to  the  government  under 
the  Constitution,  it  is  still  used  in  the  De 
partment  of  the  Navy  at  Washington.  It 
is  this  form  properly  filled  out  which  consti 
tutes  our  present  Admiral's  title  to  his  rank 
and  office.  The  Board  also  prepared  a  form 
of  commission,  of  bond,  and  of  instructions 
for  commanders  of  private  vessels  of  war.1 
In  the  instructions  the  rights  of  neutrals 
were  especially  guarded.  Following  the 
lead  of  "Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the 
Russias,"  Congress  declared  that  the  goods 
of  belligerents  on  board  neutral  vessels,  with 
the  exception  of  contraband,  were  not  sub 
ject  to  capture.  It  confined  the  term  con 
traband  to  those  articles  expressly  declared 
to  be  such  in  the  treaty  of  amity  and  com 
merce  of  February  6,  1778,  between  the 
United  States  and  France.2 

Congress  on  March  27,  1781,  passed  an 
ordinance  relative  to  the  capture  and  con 
demnation  of  prizes.  This  law  was  enacted 
by  virtue  of  the  ninth  article  of  the  Articles 
of  Confederation,  which  vested  the  war 
powers  in  Congress.  It  codified  the  resolu 
tions  of  November  25,  1775,  and  March  23, 
1776.  It  was  more  severe  than  these  reso- 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  May  2» 
November  27,  1780,  April  7,  1781 ;  Records  and 
Papers  of  Continental  Congress,  37,  pp.  225-41. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Octo 
ber    5,    1780;    Wharton's    Diplomatic    Corres 
pondence,  III,  860,  867, 


A'rti'v  of  the  American  Revolution  201 

lutions,  and  omitted  certain  indulgences 
and  exemptions,  which  they  contained.  It 
prescribed  the  penalty  of  forfeiture  of  vessel 
without  trial  for  those  captors  who  destroyed 
or  falsified  their  ship  papers.  One  of  its 
provisions  related  to  salvage.1  This  law  and 
also  the  one  of  April  7,  1781,  fixing  the  in 
structions  of  commanders  of  private  armed 
vessels,  brought  former  legislation  into  con 
formity  with  the  Articles  of  Confederation. 
The  Board  of  Admiralty  and  Congress 
were  inclined  to  disagree  as  to  the  proper 
construction  to  be  placed  upon  the  ninth 
article  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
which  gave  Congress  "the  sole  and  exclu 
sive  right  and  power  of  determining  on 
peace  and  war."  In  a  report  which  it  made 
to  Congress  under  date  of  May  29,  1781, 
after  referring  to  the  commissions  which 
Massachusetts  had  issued  to  the  "Protec 
tor"  and  "Mars,"  two  ships  of  the  navy 
of  that  state,  it  said  that  "the  Board  hum 
bly  conceives  that  Commissions  issuing 
from  different  Fountains  of  Power,  is  a 
matter  which  may  merit  the  attention  of 
the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled 
who  are  the  supreme  power  in  Peace  and 
War."  The  Board  was  inclined  to  take  the 
view  that  Massachusetts  had  no  right  to 
issue  these  commissions.  The  committee 
of  Congress  to  whom  the  report  was  re- 

1.      Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  March 
27,  1781. 


2O2  A'avy  of  the  American  Revolution 

ferred  interpreted  more  narrowly  the  war 
powers  of  Congress  than  did  the  Board  of 
Admiralty.  It  conceived  that  each  state 
had  the  right  to  issue  commissions  to  ships 
of  war  under  the  regulations  established 
by  Congress,  and  that  the  only  step  neces 
sary  to  be  taken  for  the  present  was  for  the 
Board  to  transmit  to  each  state  a  copy  of 
the  present  regulations  governing  the  issu 
ing  of  commissions.1  This  incident  is  note 
worthy  in  its  indicating  the  existence  of 
"strict"  and  "loose"  constructionists  with 
in  three  months  after  the  Articles  of  Con 
federation  wrere  adopted. 

If  another  illustration  is  needed  to  show 
the  dependence  of  the  makers  of  the  Ameri 
can  navy  upon  British  models,  some  words 
of  the  Board  of  Admiralty  are  in  point. 
For  a  long  time  it  had  under  consideration 
a  revision  of  the  rules  and  regulations  of 
the  Continental  navy.  Concerning  its  in 
tention  to  inspect  the  British  rules  and  in 
corporate  into  its  new  code  such  of  them 
as  were  adapted  to  the  American  navy,  it 
observed  that  it  did  not  "think  it  unlawful 
to  be  taught  by  an  enemy  whose  naval  skill 
and  power,  until  the  reign  of  the  present 
illustrious  King  of  France,  were  superior  to 


1.  Force  Transcripts,  Library  of  Congress, 
37,  pp.  241-44.  The  Board  of  Admiralty 
probably  had  in  mind  the  sixth  as  well  as 
the  ninth  article  of  the  Articles  of  Confeder 
ation. 


Xaz'y  of  the  American  Revolution  203 

that  of  any  kingdom  or  state  on  earth."1 
It  is  believed  that  the  work  of  the  Board 
in  this  particular  was  not  brought  before 
Congress. 

On  January  15,  1780,  Congress  created  a 
permanent  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  trial  of 
prize  cases  appealed  from  state  admiralty 
courts.  Since  January  30,  1777,  such  cases 
had  been  heard  and  determined  by  a  stand 
ing  committee  composed  of  five  members 
of  Congress.  Such  a  committee  naturally 
lacked  permanency,  expertness,  and  tech 
nical  and  legal  knowledge.  The  Court  es 
tablished  in  January,  1780,  was  to  consist 
of  three  judges,  wrho  were  to  try,  in  accord 
ance  with  the  law  of  nations,  questions  of 
fact  as  well  as  law.  On  January  22,  1780, 
Congress  chose  as  the  three  judges  of  the 
Court,  George  Wythe  of  Virginia,  William 
Paca  of  Maryland,  and  Titus  Hosmer  of 
Connecticut.2 

When  the  Board  of  Admiralty  took  charge 
of  the  navy  in  December,  1779,  there  were 
ten  Continental  cruisers  in  American  waters. 
The  "Deane,"  32,  was  fitting  for  sea  at 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  37,  pp.  277,  281,  Reports  of   Board    of 
Admiralty,  July  24,  July  26,  1780. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Jan 
uary  30,  1777;  January  15,  January  22,  1780; 
Jameson,  Essays  in  the  Constitutional  History 
of  the   United  States,  Chapter  I,   Predecessor 
of  the  Supreme  Court;  Carson,  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  Part  I,  50-57. 


2O4  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

Boston;  the  "Trumbull,"  28,  was  still  in 
the  Connecticut  river;  the  "Providence," 
28,  "Boston,"  24,  "Queen  of  France,"  28, 
and  "Ranger,"  18,  were  on  their  way  to 
Charleston,  South  Carolina,  in  whose  de 
fence  they  were  to  assist;  the  "  Confederacy," 
32,  was  at  Martinique  repairing  and  refit 
ting;  and  three  vessels  were  still  on  the 
stocks,  the  "America,"  74,  at  Portsmouth, 
"Bourbon,"  36,  at  Chatham  on  the  Connec 
ticut  river,  and  "Saratoga,"  18,  at  Phila 
delphia.  The  "Alliance"  was  at  the  Texel 
in  Holland  where  she  had  arrived  after 
playing  an  ignominious  part  in  the  cele 
brated  fight  of  Jones  off  Flamborough  Head. 
This  is  not  a  formidable  fleet,  and  its  future 
movements  have  little  bearing  upon  the 
great  naval  conflict  now  being  waged  be 
tween  the  mistress  of  the  seas  on  the  one 
side  and  France  and  Spain  on  the  other. 
The  Continental  navy,  however,  still  had 
some  important  errands  to  run,  both  Wash 
ington  and  the  French  were  to  ask  its  assist 
ance,  and  on  a  few  occasions  the  enemy 
was  to  find  its  officers  and  sailors  no  mean 
combatants. 

In  completing  the  vessels  which  were 
building  and  in  refitting  those  which  were 
in  commission,  the  Board  of  Admiralty  was 
from  the  first  sorely  embarrassed  by  a  lack 
of  money.  The  difficulties  which  the  Marine 
Committee  had  encountered  were  now  in 
tensified  by  the  prostration  of  the  country's 


A  (/IT  of  the  American  Revolution  205 

finances  and  credit.  The  Board  resorted  to 
all  means  within  reason  in  its  attempts  to 
obtain  the  requisites  for  prosecuting  its 
work.  In  January,  1780,  it  wrote  to  the 
Board  of  Treasury  that  unless  money  was 
at  once  forthcoming  the  Naval  Department 
would  be  at  a  standstill;  and  that  not  less 
than  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  would 
be  sufficient  for  its  needs.1  It  eagerly  sought 
the  proceeds  to  be  derived  from  the  sale  of 
rum,  wine,  fruit,  and  sugar,  taken  from 
Continental  prizes.  In  the  summer  of  1780 
in  order  that  its  vessels  might  be  in  condi 
tion  to  render  assistance  to  the  expected 
French  fleet,  the  Board  solicited  aid  from 
the  governors  of  New  Hampshire,  Massa 
chusetts,  and  Connecticut;  pressed  the 
Commissary-General  of  Issues  of  the  Conti 
nental  Army  to  furnish  it  with  "  62,820 
weight  of  Bread  and  13,260  weight  of  Flour" 
with  all  despatch;2  and  finally,  applied  to 
John  Holker,  the  Consul-General  of  France 
at  Philadelphia,  for  a  loan  of  60,000  pounds 
of  bread,  promising  to  take  special  pains  to 
repay  it.3 

Thus  hampered,  the  Board  was  unable  to 
accomplish  much  with  its  little  fleet.     Dur- 

1.  Marine  Committee  Letter   Book,    Board 
of  Admiralty  to   Board  of  Treasury,  January 
7,  1780. 

2.  Ibid.,   Board  of  Admiralty,  to  Commi- 
sary-General  of  Issues,  August  21,   1780. 

3.  Ibid.,    Board    of    Admiralty   to    Holker, 
August  29,  1780. 


206  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

ing  its  incumbency  some  half-dozen  cruises 
were  made  by  the  Continental  vessels. 
Twenty  prizes  were  captured;  half  of  them 
only  reached  safe  ports.  Two  of  the  prizes 
were  His  Majesty's  brigs  "Atalanta, "  16, 
and  "Trepassey,"  14,  which  were  taken  by 
the  "Alliance,"  36,  Captain  John  Barry, 
in  May,  1781,  when  returning  from  France. 
During  the  fight,  which  lasted  four  hours, 
the  gallant  Barry  was  wounded  in  the 
shoulder.  This  voyage  of  Barry,  during 
which  he  captured  seven  prizes,  was  the 
most  successful  one  made  under  the  direc 
tion  of  the  Board  of  Admiralty. 

In  June,  1780,  one  of  the  most  hotly  con 
tested  engagements  fought  at  sea  during  the 
Revolution  occurred  to  the  northward  of 
the  Bermudas  between  the  "Trumbull,"  28, 
Captain  James  Nicholson,  the  ranking  of 
ficer  of  the  Continental  navy,  and  the  Liver 
pool  privateer  "Watt,"  32,  Captain  Coult- 
hard.  After  a  fight  of  two  hours  and  a 
half  both  vessels  withdrew  seriously  dis 
abled,  and  with  difficulty  made  their  ways 
to  their  respective  ports — the  "Trumbull" 
to  Boston  and  the  "Watt"  to  New  York. 
A  British  account  of  the  engagement  places 
the  loss  of  the  "Watt"  at  eighty-eight  men, 
and  that  of  the  "Trumbull"  at  "consider 
able  more."  The  Americans  gave  their  own 
loss  as  thirty-eight  men,  and  the  British  as 
ninety-two.  The  "Trumbull"  had  two 
lieutenants  killed.  Gilbert  Saltonstall,  the 


Naz'v  of  tlic  American  Revolution  207 

captain  of  marines  onboard  the  "  Trumbull," 
wrote  a  vivid  account  of  the  fight.  He  was 
in  the  thick  of  it,  and  received  eleven  wounds. 
He  said  that  "upon  the  whole  there  has  not 
been  a  more  close,  obstinate,  and  bloody 
engagement  since  the  war.  I  hope  it  won't 
be  treason  if  I  don't  except  even  Paul  Jones'. 
All  things  considered  we  may  dispute  titles 
with  him."1  This  was  the  first  cruise  of  the 
"Trumbull."  The  other  twelve  frigates  of 
the  original  thirteen  were  at  this  time  either 
destroyed  or  captured. 

In  July,  1780,  a  futile  plan  for  an  attack 
on  New  York  was  made.  The  Continental 
navy  and  army  were  to  cooperate  with  the 
French  fleet  under  the  Admiral  the  Chevalier 
de  Ternay.  Under  the  direction  of  the 
Board  of  Admiralty,  the  Continental  vessels 
continued  to  make  voyages  to  France  and 
the  West  Indies.  The  losses  suffered  by 
the  navy  during  1780  and  the  first  half  of 
1781  were  considerable.  The  " Boston," 
"  Providence,"  "  Queen  of  France,"  and 
"Ranger"  were  surrendered  to  the  British 
on  the  fall  of  Charleston  in  May,  1780.  The 
"Confederacy,"  32,  Captain  Seth  Harding, 
returning  from  Cape  Francois  with  a  load  of 
military  stores  and  colonial  produce,  was, 
on  April  14,  1781,  captured  by  the  British 


1.  Records  and  Papers  of  New  London 
Country  Historical  Society,  part  IV,  I,  47-56; 
Boston"  Gazette,  July  24,  1780;  Gomer  Wil 
liams,  Liverpool  Privateers,  272-75. 


208  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

naval  ships,  "  Roebuck/7  44,  and  "  Orpheus," 
32.  The  u  Confederacy  "  was  taken  into  the 
British  navy  under  the  name  of  "  Confeder 
ate."  In  March,  1781,  the  "  Saratoga,"  18, 
Captain  John  Young,  foundered  at  sea  and 
all  on  board  were  lost.1 

Early  in  1781  Congress  resolved  to  super 
sede  the  Board  of  Admiralty  with  a  Secre 
tary  of  Marine,  but  failed  to  find  a  man  who 
was  willing  to  accept  the  new  office.  In 
June,  1781,  the  plan  of  appointing  an  Agent 
of  Marine,  and  vesting  in  him  the  duties  of 
the  Board  of  Admiralty,  pending  the  selec 
tion  of  a  Secretary  of  Marine,  was  brought 
forward  in  Congress.  The  commissioners 
of  admiralty  were  able  to  forecast  the  re 
sults  of  this  agitation  for  a  new  naval  sys 
tem.2  On  July  9,  1781,  Ellery  informed 
Congress  "that  his  family  affairs  pressed  his 
return  home,  and  therefore  requested  leave 
of  absence."3  As  there  was  at  this  time 
but  one  Congressional  member  serving  on 
the  Board,  on  the  absence  of  Ellery  no  quo 
rum  could  be  obtained.  Lewis  now  prayed 
Congress  to  permit  him  to  resign,  or  to  give 
him  such  further  directions  "  as  they  in  their 


1.  List  of  Officers  in  Revolutionary  Navy, 
miscellaneous   manuscripts  in  the   Library   of 
Congress. 

2.  See  Chapter  VIII,  Secretary  of  Marine 
and  Agent  of  Marine. 

3.  Journals  of  Continental    Congress,    July 
9,  1781. 


Xavy  of  the  American  Revolution  209 

wisdom  shall  deem  meet."1  On  July  17 
Congress  accepted  his  resignation.2  On  July 
18  Congress  put  the  marine  prisoners  in 
charge  of  the  Commissary  of  Prisoners  of 
the  army,  and  ordered  the  seal  of  the  ad 
miralty  to  be  deposited  with  the  Secretary 
of  Congress  until  a  Secretary  of  Marine 
should  be  appointed.3  The  Revolutionary 
Naval  Department  was  without  a  head. 

The  Board  of  Admiralty  was  not  a  satis 
factory  executive.  It  was  at  all  times  de 
pendent  on  its  Congressional  members  for 
quorums.  It  proved  to  be  slower,  more 
cumbersome,  and  less  responsible  than  the 
Marine  Committee.  The  management  of 
the  navy  still  lacked  unity  and  concentra 
tion.  On  the  other  hand,  had  the  Board 
not  been  superseded,  its  commissioners  would 
no  doubt  in  time  have  developed  greater 
expertness  and  technical  skill  than  did  the 
members  of  the  Marine  Committee.  It 
should  also  be  said  that  under  more  favor 
able  auspices  the  Board  of  Admiralty  would 
have  shown  a  higher  administrative  efficien 
cy  than  it  did ;  for  its  lines  had  indeed  fallen 
in  unpleasant  places,  and  a  bankrupt  federal 
treasury  and  a  decadent  Congress  denied  it 
the  means  requisite  to  the  successful  prose 
cution  of  its  work. 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  78,  XIV,  445-47. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,    July 
17,  1781. 

3.  Ibid.,  July  18,  1781. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE    SECRETARY    OF    MARINE  AND    THE 
AGENT  OF  MARINE 

On  the  question  of  the  proper  organiza 
tion  of  the  executive  departments,  the  lead 
ers  of  the  Revolution  were  divided  into  two 
factions.  Moved  by  their  love  of  liberty, 
their  distrust  of  governments,  and  their  jeal 
ousy  of  delegated  and  concentrated  powers, 
the  members  of  one  faction  favored  the  vest 
ing  of  the  executive  business  in  Congres 
sional  committees.  The  members  of  the 
other  faction,  who  stood  for  governmental 
authority  and  control,  for  constructive  legis 
lation  in  the  field  of  administration,  and  for 
the  application  of  the  principles  of  business 
to  the  affairs  of  state,  declared  for  a  system 
of  permanent  and  single-headed  executives 
chosen  outside  of  the  membership  of  Con 
gress.  The  issue  that  was  here  joined  in  the 
special  field  of  administration  was  of  course 
a  part  of  that  perennial  and  perpetual  con 
flict  between  the  freedom  of  the  individual 
and  social  control.  In  this  case,  as  every 
where  and  always,  the  political  doctrinaires, 
the  iconoclasts  and  radicals,  and  the  men 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   211 

of  heart  rather  than  of  head,  lined  up  on  the 
side  of  liberty;  while  the  practical  and  con 
servative  men,  the  representatives  of  vested 
interests,  and  the  cold,  logical  thinkers, 
stood  together  on  the  side  of  governmental 
control. 

The  faction  which  distrusted  power  and 
wished  to  keep  it  scattered,  may  be  called 
the  "dispersive  school;"  and  the  faction 
which  wished  to  gather  up  the  power  and 
lodge  it  with  a  few  men,  may  be  called  the 
"concentrative  school."  To  the  "disper 
sive  school"  belonged  Samuel  Adams,  the 
Lees,  Patrick  Henry,  and  William  Whipple; 
to  the  "concentrative  school",  Hamilton, 
Washington,  the  Morrises,  and  Jay.  Early 
in  the  Revolution  the  advantage  lay  with 
the  "dispersive  school."  Its  executive  plan 
of  Congressional  committees  needed  little 
work  to  put  it  into  operation;  it  was  more 
flexible  than  the  scheme  of  permanent  single- 
headed  executives;  and  it  was  more  in  har 
mony  with  the  ultra  anti-monarchical  spirit 
of  the  times.  The  Revolutionary  govern 
ment,  originating  as  a  congress  of  delegates, 
organized  itself,  after  the  manner  of  con 
gresses,  by  means  of  committees  of  its  own 
members.  When  the  Congress  became  a 
Government,  and  had  entrusted  to  it  a  mul 
tiplicity  of  executive  duties,  it  naturally 
continued  and  adapted  the  old  organization 
for  the  transaction  of  its  new  business.  The 
executive  system  of  Congressional  commit- 


212  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

tees,  in  this  way  becoming  fixed,  could  not 
be  easily  changed. 

By  1780  the  "concentrative  school"  was 
winning  its  way.  Indeed,  the  adoption  in 
1779  of  mixed  boards  composed  of  men  both 
in  and  out  of  Congress  was  a  compromise 
between  the  two  schools,  in  which  the  "con- 
centrative  school' '  gave  up  its  contention 
for  simplicity  in  the  executive  organs,  in 
order  to  secure,  in  part  at  least,  another  of 
its  objectives,  permanency  in  the  tenure  of 
the  administrators.  By  1780  both  com 
mittees  and  boards  had  been  tried  and 
found  wanting.  Then  too,  there  was  a 
greater  need  for  a  change  in  the  executive 
system,  than  in  the  first  years  of  the  war. 
As  Congress  became  imbecile,  the  quality  of 
its  committees  and  of  their  work  deterio 
rated  ;  and  as  the  country  wearied  of  the  war, 
and  its  finances  tightened,  the  necessity  for 
greater  economy  and  efficiency  in  admin 
istration  increased.  In  1780  the  feeling 
among  the  leaders  was  general  that  a  crisis 
in  the  army,  in  the  finances,  and  in  the  busi 
ness  of  the  government,  which  could  be  met 
only  by  some  thorough  and  far-reaching 
reform,  was  approaching.  The  leaders  of 
the  "concentrative  school"  proposed  a  com 
plete  change  in  the  administrative  system 
of  Congress  as  a  solution  of  the  serious  prob 
lems  that  confronted  the  country.  By  the 
end  of  1780  a  movement  for  a  reform  of  this 
sort  was  in  progress.  It  was  diligently  fur- 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   213 

thered  by  one  school  and  zealously  opposed 
by  the  other. 

"If  Congress/'  Washington  wrote  in  De 
cember,  1780,  "suppose  that  Boards  com 
posed  of  their  own  body,  and  always  fluctu 
ating,  are  competent  to  the  great  business 
of  war  (which  requires  not  only  close  appli 
cation,  but  a  constant  and  uniform  train  of 
thinking  and  acting),  they  will  most  assured 
ly  deceive  themselves.  Many,  many  in 
stances  might  be  adduced  in  proof  of  this/7 
Washington  was  convinced  that  extrava 
gant  and  improper  expenditures  of  the  pub 
lic  money,  inexpertness  in  the  transacting 
of  business,  and  needless  delays  resulted 
from  vesting  all  or  a  part  of  the  duties  of 
an  executive  office  in  Congress.1  Hamilton 
declared  specifically  for  the  substitution  of 
single  executives  for  plural  ones,  and  he 
named  three  men  whom  he  considered  espe 
cially  qualified  for  departmental  posts, 
General  Schuyler  for  Minister  of  War,  Gen 
eral  McDougall  for  Minister  of  Marine,  and 
Robert  Morris  for  Minister  of  Finance.  He 
conceived  that  there  were  always  more 
knowledge,  energy,  responsibility,  decision, 
despatch,  zeal,  and  attraction  for  first-rate 

1.  Ford's  Washington,  IX,  75-76,  Washing 
ton  to  James  Duane,  December  26,  1780;  33-5, 
Washington  to  John  Sullivan,  November  20, 
1780;  125,  Washington  to  R.  R.  Livingston, 
January  31,  1781;  131-34,  Washington  to  John 
Sullivan,  February  4,  1781;  246,  Washington 
to  John  Sullivan,  May  11,  1781. 


214  -Vary  of  the  American  Revolution 

ability  "where  single  men,  than  where  bod 
ies  are  concerned."1  Gouverneur  Morris 
contributed  to  the  agitation  in  behalf  of 
better  executives  an  enumeration  of  the 
qualifications  requisite  in  the  men  who  were 
to  become  heads  of  the  leading  departments. 
He  held,  as  still  do  some  of  the  writers  on 
naval  administration,  that  a  Minister  of 
Marine  should  possess  a  practical  and  tech 
nical  knowledge  of  naval  affairs ;  and  he  pre 
sented  a  unique  list  of  his  qualities  in  the 
following  words: 

"A  minister  of  the  marine  should  be  a 
man  of  plain  good  sense,  and  a  good  econo 
mist,  firm  but  not  harsh;  well  acquainted 
with  sea  affairs,  such  as  the  construction, 
fitting,  and  victualling  of  ships,  the  conduct 
and  manoeuvre  on  a  cruise,  and  in  action, 
the  nautical  face  of  the  earth,  and  maritime 
phenomenon.  He  should  know  the  temper, 
manners,  and  disposition  of  sailors;  for  all 
which  purposes  it  is  proper,  that  he  should 
have  been  bred  to  that  business,  and  have 
followed  it,  in  peace  and  war,  in  a  military, 
and  commercial  capacity.  His  principles 
and  manners  should  be  absolutely  republi 
can,  and  his  circumstances  not  indigent."2 

It  has  been  said  that  the  debate  in  Con 
gress  over  the  change  in  the  executive  sys- 


1.  Hamilton's  Hamilton,  I,  127,  note,  Ham. 
ilton    to    Robert    Morris,    1780;     154-55,    159^ 
Hamilton  to  James  Duane,  September  3,1780' 

2.  Sparks's  Gouverneur  Morris,    I,   229-30.' 


Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution   215 

tem  was  long,  and  was  marked  by  the  work 
ings  of  party  spirit,  the  self-interest  of  some 
members,  and  the  doubts  and  fears  and  di 
vided  opinions  of  others.1  Samuel  Adams 
placed  himself  at  the  head  of  the  advocates 
of  the  old  system.  On  January  10,  1781, 
the  friends  of  the  new  system  gained  their 
first  decisive  victory;  for  on  this  day  Con 
gress  resolved  to  establish  a  Department  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  and  to  appoint  for  its  chief 
officer  a  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs.2  Five 
days  later  Adams  wrote  to  Richard  Henry 
Lee  a  letter  which  is  almost  pathetic  in  its 
earnestness  and  seriousness.  "My  friend," 
he  said,  "we  must  not  suffer  anything  to  dis 
courage  us  in  this  great  conflict.  Let  us  re 
cur  to  first  principles  without  delay.  It  is 
our  duty  to  make  every  proper  exertion  in 
our  respective  States  to  revive  the  old  patri 
otic  feelings  among  the  people  at  large,  and 
to  get  the  public  departments,  especially  the 
most  important  of  them,  filled  with  men  of 
understanding  and  inflexible  virtue.  Our 
cause  is  surely  too  interesting  to  mankind 
to  be  put  under  the  direction  of  men,  vain, 
avaricious,  or  concealed  under  the  hypocrit 
ical  guise  of  patriotism,  without  a  spark  of 
public  virtue/'  Adams  recognized  that  the 
public  service  needed  reforming.  This  he 

1.  Sparks's  Gouverneur   Morris,  I,  227-28; 
Reed's  Reed,  II,  296. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Janu 
ary  10,  1781. 


216  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

would  accomplish,  not  by  a  change  of  the  ad 
ministrative  system,  but  by  the  introduction 
of  more  competent  and  more  virtuous  men 
into  Congress  and  into  its  committees.  This 
latter  was  to  be  brought  about  by  a  revival 
of  civic  interest  in  the  several  states.1 

On  February  7,  1781,  Congress  "resumed 
the  consideration  of  the  plan  for  the  ar 
rangement  of  the  civil  executive  depart 
ments."  It  this  day  resolved  that  there 
should  be  a  Superintendant  of  Finance,  a 
Secretary  of  War,  and  a  Secretary  of  Marine. 
It  summed  up  the  duties  of  the  Secretary  of 
Marine  in  the  following  brief  paragraph: 

"It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  secretary  of 
marine  to  examine  into  and  to  report  to 
Congress  the  present  state  of  the  navy,  a 
register  of  the  officers  in  and  out  of  com 
mand,  and  the  dates  of  their  respective 
commissions;  and  an  account  of  all  the  na 
val  and  other  stores  belonging  to  that  de 
partment;  to  form  estimates  of  all  pay, 
equipments,  and  supplies  necessary  for  the 
navy;  and  from  time  to  time  to  report  such 
estimates  to  the  superintendant  of  finance, 
'that  he  may  take  measures  for  providing 
for  the  expences,  in  such  manner  as  may  best 
suit  the  condition  of  the  public  treasury; 
to  superintend  and  direct  the  execution  of 
all  resolutions  of  Congress  respecting  naval 


1.  Wells,  Samuel  Adams,  111,127,  Adams  to 
Lee,  January  15,  1781;  128,  extract  from  a  letter 
of  Luzerne.French  minister  to  the  United  States. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  217 

preparations;  to  make  out,  seal,  and  count 
ersign  all  marine  commissions,  keep  registers 
thereof,  and  publish  annually  a  list  of  all 
appointments;  to  report  to  Congress  the 
officers  and  agents  necessary  to  assist  him 
in  the  business  of  his  department;  and  in 
general  to  execute  all  the  duties  and  powers 
specified  in  the  act  of  Congress  constituting 
the  board  of  admiralty." 

Speaking  generally,  the  Secretary  of  Ma 
rine  was  to  succeed  to  the  duties  and  powers 
of  the  Board  of  Admiralty.  It  is,  however, 
significant  that  the  Secretary  was  not  spe 
cifically  charged  with  the  ordering  and 
directing  of  the  movements  of  the  vessels  of 
war,  as  was  the  Board.  The  specified  duties 
of  the  new  office  are  largely  secretarial. 
Congress  was  disposed  to  be  less  liberal  in 
granting  powers  to  a  Secretary  chosen  out 
side  its  membership  than  to  a  Board  partly 
composed  of  Congressmen.  On  February 
9th  the  salary  of  the  Secretary  of  Marine 
was  fixed  at  $5000  per  annum.1 

On  February  27,  1781,  Congress,  with  a 
promptness  which  was  exceptional,  elected 
Major-General  Alexander  McDougall  of  New 
York  to  be  Secretary  of  Marine,  for  which  po 
sition  he  had  been  recommended  by  Alex- 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Feb 
ruary  7,  February  9,  1781.  On  October  1, 
1781,  the  salary  of  the  Secretary  of  Marine 
was  fixed  at  $4,000  per  annum,  payable  in 
specie. 


218  Narv  of  the  American  Revolution 

ander  Hamilton.  McDougall's  qualifica 
tions  for  the  office  were  above  the  average. 
In  the  French  and  Indian  War  he  had  been 
a  commander  of  privateers.  Later  he  be 
came  a  merchant  in  New  York  City.  He 
was  a  leader  of  the  Revolution  in  that  state, 
and  had  risen  to  the  rank  of  a  major-general 
in  the  Revolutionary  army.  McDougall  de 
clined  to  accept  the  position  preferred  him 
unless  permitted  to  hold  his  rank  in  the 
army,  and  to  retain  the  privilege  of  return 
ing  to  the  field  when  his  services  were  re 
quired.  He  based  this  partial  refusal  on 
patriotic  grounds.  Congress  did  not  wish 
a  Secretary  of  Marine  on  these  conditions; 
and  it  therefore  voted  that  it  did  not  expect 
the  acceptance  of  Major-General  McDougall, 
and  that  it  had  a  due  sense  of  his  zeal  "for 
the  safety  and  honour  of  America,  and  ap 
plaud  his  magnanimity  in  declining  'to  re 
tire  from  the  toils  and  perils  of  the  field  in 
the  present  critical  condition  of  the  United 
States  in  general,  and  that  of  New  York  in 
particular.'  "l  Congress  made  no  other 
choice  of  a  Secretary  of  Marine. 

During  the  summer  of  1781  the  control  of 
naval  affairs  gravitated  towards  Robert 
Morris.  Soon  after  assuming  the  office  of 


1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Feb 
ruary  27,  March  30,  1781.  Three  states  were 
willing  to  accept  McDougall  on  the  conditions 
he  proposed.  Samuel  Adams  and  his  friends 
voted  against  acceptance. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  219 

Superintendant  of  Finance  in  May,  1781, 
he  was  brought  into  close  relation  with  the 
navy.  He  was  invited  to  take  upon  him 
self  more  or  less  of  the  naval  business  by 
the  urgent  need  of  sending  the  cruisers  on 
important  errands,  the  helplessness  of  the 
Board  of  Admiralty,  the  inertia  of  Congress, 
and  the  interregnum  in  the  headship  of  the 
Naval  Department,  which  lasted  from  the 
discontinuance  of  the  Board  of  Admiralty 
early  in  July,  1781,  until  the  appointment 
of  an  Agent  of  Marine  on  September  7.  The 
figure  that  Morris  presents  at  this  time  is  that 
of  the  strong  and  confident  man  of  affairs, 
sagacious,  expeditious,  and  painstaking, 
who  is  surrounded  by  weaker  men,  hesitat 
ing,  vacillating,  and  procrastinating  in  their 
administrative  attempts. 

In  June,  1781,  Morris  wrote  to  the  Pres 
ident  of  Congress  recommending  the  ap 
pointment  of  a  captain  for  the  74-gun  ship 
''America/'  and  explaining  how  money  for 
completing  her  might  be  obtained.  He 
says  that  he  is  aware  that  John  Jay  has  lib 
erty  to  sell  this  ship  at  the  Court  of  Madrid ; 
that  he  thinks  and  hopes  that  Jay  will  not 
succeed,  for  the  sale  of  the  "America"  would 
be  injurious  to  the  United  States;  and  that 
it  would  be  "more  consistent  with  Oeconomy 
and  with  the  dignity  of  Congress  to  have  her 
finished  than  to  let  her  Perish."  On  the 
receipt  of  this  letter,  Congress  authorized 
Morris  to  take  measures  for  launching  the 


22O  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

" America"  and  fitting  her  for  sea.1  Morris 
now  hinted  to  the  Board  of  Admiralty  that 
the  frigate  "Trumbull"  could  perform  an 
essential  public  service  if  put  under  his  di 
rection,  and  pursuing  his  plan,  he  obtained 
a  resolution  of  Congress  giving  him  control  of 
this  vessel.2  During  the  summer  of  1781, 
while  the  reorganization  of  the  Naval  De 
partment  was  in  suspense,  Morris,  on  his 
own  initiative,  directed  the  fitting  out  of  the 
"Alliance"  and  "Deane,"  and  ordered  them 
to  proceed  to  sea,  "being  convinced  that 
while  they  lay  in  port,  an  useless  Expence 
must  necessarily  be  incurred."3 

Meanwhile,  a  movement  to  place  the  Na 
val  Department  under  the  control  of  Morris 
had  been  set  on  foot  in  Congress.  On  June 
26  Meriwether  Smith  of  Virginia  reported 
a  series  of  resolutions  providing  for  the  re 
organization  of  the  Naval  Department,  a 
work  which  he  considered  necessary  because 
the  present  naval  system  was  "inefficient 


1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,    137,    I,   47,    55,    Morris  to    President  of 
Congress,  June  22,  1781;  Ibid.,  28,  p.  145,  Re 
port    of     Committee    respecting     "America"; 
journals    of    Continental    Congress,    June    23, 
1781. 

2.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137,  T,  77;  Journals  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  July  11,  1781. 

3.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137,  I,  137,  Morris  to  President  of  Con 
gress,  September  10,  1781. 


Nai'v  of  the  American  Revolution   221 

and  expensive."1     The  most  important  of 
these  resolutions  was  one  which  dissolved 
the  offices  of  the  Board    of  Admiralty,    the 
navy  boards,  and  the  naval  agents;  and  an 
other,  which  empowered  the  Superintend- 
ant   of   Finance   to   appoint  some   discreet 
agent  to  manage  the  navy  under  the  order 
and  inspection  of  the  said  superintendant, 
until  a  Secretary  of  Marine  should  be  ap 
pointed,  or  until  the  further  pleasure  of  Con 
gress.     On   the   day   of   their   introduction 
these  resolutions  were  referred  to  a  com 
mittee,  consisting  of  Meriwether  Smith  of 
Virginia,    Roger   Sherman   of   Connecticut, 
and  Daniel  of  St.  Thomas  Jenifer,  of  Mary 
land.     On   July   2,    having   made   a   slight 
change  in  the  phraseology  of  the  resolutions, 
this  committee  reported  them  to  Congress;2 
and  on  July  6  it  again  reported  them,  hav 
ing  now  added  a  few  additional  resolutions. 
One  of  the  latter  was  to  the  effect  that  the 
election  of  a  Secretary  of  Marine  should  be 
postponed  until  the  first  Monday  in  Novem 
ber.     On  the  putting  of  this  resolution,  it 
passed  in  the  negative.     The  states  divided 
sectionally;  the  four  New  England  states 
and  Delaware  voted  in  the  negative ;  Penn 
sylvania  and  the  five  Southern  states,  ex 
cept  South   Carolina    which  was   divided, 


1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,    28,    p.    135,    Resolutions  of   M.    Smith. 

2.  Ibid.,   p.    133,   Report  of  Committee  on 
Smith's    resolutions. 


222  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

voted  in  the  affirmative;  delegates  from 
New  York  and  New  Jersey  were  not  pres 
ent  in  Congress.  The  vote  seems  to  indicate 
the  defeat  of  those  who  were  in  favor  of 
placing  the  navy  under  the  control  of  Mor 
ris.  On  the  same  day,  July  6,  the  remain 
ing  resolutions  were  referred  to  a  committee 
consisting  of  Thomas  McKean  of  Delaware, 
Oliver  Ellsworth  of  Connecticut,  and  Theo- 
doric  Bland  of  Virginia.1 

On  July  18  the  new  committee  reported  a 
series  of  resolutions,  differing  little  from 
those  which  had  been  referred  to  it,  with  the 
exception  of  one  important  change;  the 
Agent  of  Marine  was  now  to  be  appointed, 
not  by  Morris,  but  by  Congress.  On  this 
day  Congress  passed  two  of  the  committee's 
resolutions.  One  of  these  transferred  the 
care  of  the  marine  prisoners  from  the  Board 
of  Admiralty  to  the  Commissary  of  Pris 
oners  of  the  army;  and  the  other  ordered 
the  seal  of  the  admiralty  to  be  deposited 
with  the  Secretary  of  Congress,  and  em 
powered  him  to  use  it  in  countersigning  na 
val  commissions.  The  remaining  resolu 
tions  again  went  over.  Congress  wras  able 
to  agree  on  the  discontinuance  of  the  Board 
of  Admiralty,  but  not  on  the  arrange 
ments  for  its  successor.2 


1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  28,   p.    149,   Resolutions  of  Committee; 
Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  July  6,  1781. 

2.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con- 


Nar\  of  the  American  Revolution   223 

Finally,  the  whole  business  of  the  re 
organization  of  the  Naval  Department  was 
referred  to  a  third  committee,  composed  of 
Theodoric  Bland  of  Virginia,  James  M.  Var- 
num  of  Rhode  Island,  and  James  Duane  of 
New  York.  On  the  report  of  this  commit 
tee  on  August  29,  Congress  agreed  "that  for 
the  present  an  agent  of  marine  be  appoint 
ed,  with  authority  to  direct,  fit  out,  equip, 
and  employ  the  ships  and  vessels  of  war  be 
longing  to  the  United  States,  according  to 
such  instructions  as  he  shall,  from  time  to 
time,  receive  from  Congress."  The  Agent 
of  Marine  was  to  direct  the  selling  of  all 
prizes.  He  was  to  settle  and  pay  the  naval 
accounts,  and  keep  a  record  of  his  work. 
As  soon  as  he  entered  into  the  execution  of 
his  office,  the  functions  and  appointments 
of  the  board  of  admiralty,  the  several  navy 
boards,  and  all  civil  officers,  appointed 
under  them,  should  cease  and  be  determined. 
The  salary  of  the  new  head  of  the  Naval  De 
partment  was  fixed  at  $1,500  a  year,  and 
that  of  his  clerk  at  $500.  Both  the  Agent 
of  Marine  and  his  clerk  were  required  to 
take  an  oath  "well  and  faithfully  to  exe 
cute  the  trust  reposed  in  them,  according 
to  the  best  of  their  skill  and  judgment"; 
and  to  give  good  and  sufficient  bond.1 

gress,  28,  p.  147,  Report  of  Committee  on  July 
18;  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  July  18. 
1781. 

1.      Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con- 


224  -VflT'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

These  resolutions  of  August  29  were  to 
be  only  temporary;  and  they  did  not  dis 
place  those  of  February  7,  1781,  which  pro 
vided  for  a  Secretary  of  Marine.  A  second 
temporary ,  expedient  was  resorted  to  on 
September  7,  when  Congress  resolved: 
"That  until  an  agent  of  marine  shall  be  ap 
pointed  by  Congress,  all  the  duties,  powers, 
and  authority  assigned  to  the  said  agent, 
be  devolved  upon  and  executed  by  the  said 
superintendant  of  finance."1 

The  reason  why  Congress  appointed  an 
Agent  of  Marine  instead  of  a  Secretary  of 
Marine  is  not  at  all  points  clear.  Having 
failed  to  secure  the  acceptance  of  McDougall 
as  Secretary  of  Marine,  Congress  may  have 
decided  that  the  small  and  disheartening 
business  of  the  navy  would  not  attract  first- 
rate  talent;  or  that  for  the  transaction  of  this 
business  a  full-fledged  executive  department 
was  not  necessary.  It  is  more  probable 
that  the  appointment  of  an  Agent  of  Marine, 
under  the  circumstances  of  a  disagreeing 
Congress,  the  failure  of  the  Board  of  Admi 
ralty,  and  the  improbability  of  securing  an 
efficient  Secretary,  was  merely  a  temporary 
and  feasible  expedient  for  conducting  the 
affairs  of  the  navy.  There  are  obvious  rea 
sons  why  the  proposal  to  give  the  Superin- 


gress,  28,  p.  157;  Journals  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  August  29,   1781. 

1.      Journals  of  Continental  Congress,   Sep 
tember  7,  1781. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  225 

tendant  of  Finance  the  power  to  appoint 
the  Agent  of  Marine,  or  the  selection  of  Mor 
ris  as  Agent,  should  have  aroused  vigorous 
opposition.  Men  of  Samuel  Adams's  way 
of  thinking  would  oppose  it,  among  other 
reasons,  because  it  placed  too  much  power 
in  the  hands  of  one  man.  The  friends  of 
the  navy  would  dislike  to  see  the  Naval  De 
partment  swallowed  up  by  the  Department 
of  Finance.  But  on  the  other  hand,  man}' 
considerations  recommended  the  step  which 
was  finally  taken.  It  was  the  most  econom 
ical  disposition  of  the  naval  business  which 
could  be  made.  Morris  had  superior  quali 
fications  for  the  office,  and  he  was  at  once 
available.  Indeed,  he  was  the  only  man  in 
sight  that  promised  to  be  equal  to  the  task 
of  straightening  out  the  tangle  of  marine 
accounts,  of  financing  a  bankrupt  navy,  and 
of  wielding  effectively  that  arm  of  the  mili 
tary  service.  He  was  admirably  qualified 
for  the  headship  of  the  Naval  Department 
by  his  experience  as  a  man  of  business,  fa 
miliar  with  accounts  and  the  selection  of 
employees,  as  the  owner  of  a  fleet  of  mer 
chantmen,  and  as  one  of  two  or  three  of  the 
most  influential  members  of  the  Marine 
Committee  during  the  years  1776  and  1777, 
when  the  navy  was  founded.  Whatever 
may  have  been  the  shortcomings  of  the  navy 
while  Morris  was  directing  it,  they  did  not 
spring  from  the  lack  of  an  efficient  execu- 


226    Nai'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

live.  For  the  first  time  during  the  Revo 
lution  its  management  was  marked  by 
despatch,  decision,  and  an  expert  and  ade 
quate  understanding  of  its  problems. 

On  September  8,  1781,  Morris  wrote  to 
the  President  of  Congress  accepting,  in 
words  of  modesty  and  reluctance,  his  ap 
pointment  as  Agent  of  Marine.  " There 
are  many  Reasons,"  he  said,  "why  I  would 
have  wished  that  this  Burthen  had  been 
laid  on  other  Shoulders,  or  that  at  least  I 
might  have  been  permitted  to  appoint  a 
temporary  Agent  untill  the  further  Pleasure 
of  Congress.  As  it  is  I  shall  undertake  the 
Task  however  contrary  to  my  Inclinations 
and  inconsistent  with  the  many  Duties 
which  press  heavily  upon  me,  because  it 
will  at  least  save  Money  to  the  Public." 
He  then  added,  in  a  characteristic  way, 
some  observations  on  his  new  task.  "True 
Oeconomy  in  the  public  business,"  he  de 
clared,  "consists  in  employing  a  sufficient 
Number  of  Proper  persons  to  perform  the 
Public  Business."  He  wished  the  accounts 
of  the  marine  department  to  be  speedily  set 
tled.1 

Morris  filled  the  office  of  Agent  of  Marine 
from  September  7,  1781,  until  November  1, 
1784.  It  is  believed  that  he  received  no  sal 
ary  as  Agent  of  Marine.  In  addition  to  Mor- 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137,  I,  133,  Morris  to  President  of  Con 
gress,  September  8,  1781. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   227 

ris  the  personnel  of  the  Marine  Office  con 
sisted  of  James  Read,  Secretary  to  the 
Agent  of  Marine,  at  a  salary  of  $1,000  a 
year;  Joseph  Pennell,  paymaster,  at  a  sal 
ary  of  $1,000;  and  George  Turner,  Commis 
sary  of  Naval  Prisoners,  at  a  salary  of  $1,- 
200 ;  the  latter  officer  was  authorized  on  July 
24,  1782.1  Read,  who  had  been  one  of  the 
commissioners  of  the  Navy  Board  of  the 
Middle  Department,  was  of  great  service  to 
Morris  in  conducting  the  business  of  the 
Marine  Office.  The  clerical  work  of  the 
Office  was  performed  by  the  clerks  of  the 
office  of  the  Superintendant  of  Finance,  an 
instance  of  Morris's  economies. 

According  to  the  resolutions  of  Septem 
ber  7,  1781,  the  positions  of  the  commis 
sioners  of  the  navy  boards  were  abolished 
and  the  positions  of  the  prize  agents  were  va 
cated.  .The  Navy  Board  at  Boston  con 
tinued  however  to  fit  out  vessels  until 
March,  1782.  It  was  not  until  some  time 
later  that  it  delivered  over  the  books  and 
papers  of  the  Board  to  John  Brown,  the  for 
mer  secretary  of  the  Board  of  Admiralty, 
whom  Morris  had  appointed  naval  agent  for 
settling  the  business  of  the  navy  in  New 
England.  In  the  four  New  England  states, 
North  and  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia, 
Morris  either  re-appointed  the  prize  agents 
of  the  Board  of  Admiralty,  or  appointed  new 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137,  II,  183. 


228  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

ones;  in  the  other  states,  he  served  in  this 
capacity  himself.1 

The  Agent  of  Marine,  like  the  Board  of 
Admiralty,  communicated  with  Congress 
by  means  of  written  reports,  which  that  body 
referred  to  special  committees  of  its  own 
members.  Accordingly,  when  naval  busi 
ness  was  discussed  in  Congress,  it  usually 
came  up  in  the  form  of  a  ' 'report  of  a  com 
mittee  on  the  report  of  the  Agent  of  Marine." 
The  subjects  upon  which  the  Agent  of  Ma 
rine  reported  were  similar  to  those  dealt 
with  by  his  predecessors  in  naval  adminis 
tration.  Not  a  few  of  his  reports  were  con 
cerned  with  the  settling  of  marine  accounts, 
and  the  satisfying  of  claimants  against  tho 
government,  which  business  was  now  in 
sistent.  During  his  tenure  of  the  office  of 
Agent  of  Marine,  Morris  prepared  the  larger 
part  of  the  naval  legislation  of  Congress. 
The  changes  or  additions  to  his  work  which 
were  made  by  committees  of  Congress  were 
unimportant. 

The  law  that  provides  for  a  change  in  a 
governmental  system  is  often  incomplete, 
and  experience  under  the  new  orderf  of  busi 
ness  soon  suggests  the  need  of  supplemen 
tary  legislation.  This  was  the  case  with 
the  laws  which  transferred  the  naval  busi 
ness  from  the  Board  of  Admiralty  to  the 
Agent  of  Marine.  Morris,  in  one  of  his  first 

~T SE  I.  J.  Griffin,  Commodore  John  Barry, 
169. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   229 

reports,  explained  to  Congress  that  he  had 
no  power  to  hold  courts  of  enquiry;  there 
upon,  Congress,  on  November  20,  1781,  re 
vived  the  law  of  February  8,  1780,  on  the 
holding  of  courts  of  enquiry  and  courts-mar 
tial,  which  had  lapsed  with  the  passing  of 
the  Board  of  Admiralty.  Morris's  busi 
ness-like  care  for  the  saving  of  time  and  ef 
fort  is  well  shown,  when  in  this  report  he 
tactfully  suggests  that  Congress  adapt  their 
act  not  only  to  the  Agent  of  Marine,  but 
also  to  the  Secretary  of  Marine,  so  that 
when  the  latter  is  appointed,  "it  may  not 
be  necessary  for  him  to  bring  this  matter 
again  under  Consideration/'1 

By  the  law  of  November  20  Morris  was 
empowered  to  constitute  a  court  of  enquiry 
with  three  persons;  and  to  constitute  a  court- 
martial  with  three  captains  and  three  first 
lieutenants  of  marines,  "if  there  shall  be  so 
many  of  the  marines  then  present".  But 
in  the  event  that  so  many  officers  for  a  court- 
martial  could  not  be  conveniently  assem 
bled,  he  might  appoint  any  five  persons  to 
hold  it.  Morris,  convinced  of  the  impro 
priety  of  constituting  naval  courts  with 
civilians,  did  not  wish  to  avail  himself  of 
this  latter  alternative.  Accordingly,  on 
June  8,  1782,  he  made  a  report  on  naval 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137,  I,  233,  Morris  to  President  of  Con 
gress,  November  17,  1781;  Journals  of  Conti 
nental  Congress,  November  20,  1781. 


230  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

courts,  which  became  the  basis  of  the  reso 
lutions  of  Congress  of  June  12  on  this  sub 
ject.  These  provided  that  in  the  future  a 
marine  court  of  enquiry  or  court-martial 
for  enquiring  into  and  trying  capital  cases 
should  consist  of  five  navy  and  marine  of 
ficers,  two  of  whom  should  be  captains;  and 
in  all  cases  not  capital,  should  consist  of 
three  navy  and  marine  officers,  one  of  whom 
should  be  a  captain  in  the  navy.  No  sen 
tence  in  capital  cases  was  to  be  executed 
until  approved  by  the  Agent  of  Marine.  All 
naval  courts  for.  commissioned  officers  must 
be  appointed  by  the  Agent  of  Marine.  A 
captain  in  the  navy  might  appoint  a  court- 
martial  for  the  trial  of  offences  committed 
by  any  other  than  a  commissioned  officer, 
provided  that  the  sentencing  of  a  warrant 
officer  to  be  cashiered  should  have  the  con 
firmation  of  the  Agent  of  Marine.1 

During  the  incumbency  of  Morris,  no  cap 
tain  in  the  navy  was  cashiered.  The  find 
ings  of  a  court-martial,  which  was  held  in 
Boston  in  the  early  summer  of  1781,  possess 
a  peculiar  interest,  because  of  the  light  which 
they  throw  upon  the  penal  code  of  the  Conti 
nental  navy,  and  because  this  case  is  one 
of  the  first  in  which  a  seaman  in  the  Ameri 
can  navy  was  sentenced  to  be  hanged. 


1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137,  I,  543,  Report  of  Morris,  June  3, 
1782;  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  June 
12,  1782. 


Xaz'y  of  the  American  Revolution  231 

Three  seamen,  who  were  enlisted  on  board 
the  " Alliance,"  were  tried  for  a  breach  of 
the  29th  article  of  the  rules  and  regulations 
of  the  navy.1  Of  Patrick  Sheridan,  the 
court  adjudged  that  he  should  be  whipped 
three  hundied  and  fifty-four  lashes  upon 
the  naked  back,  one  hundred  and  seventy- 
seven  thereof  alongside  the  ship  "Alliance," 
and  the  remainder  alongside  the  ship 
"Deane."  John  Crawford  was  sentenced 
to  wear  a  halter  around  his  neck,  arid  receive 
fifty  lashes.  Sheridan  and  Crawford  were 
to  lose  certain  wages  and  their  share  of 
prize  money.  The  court  found  the  third 
seaman,  William  McClehany,  "peculiarly 
Guilty  of  a  breach  of  all  the  Clauses  in  the 
Article  aforesaid,"  and  it  adjudged  that  he 
should  ' '  suffer  the  punishment  of  death, 
and  that  he  be  hanged  by  the  neck  on  the 
starboard  fore  Yard  Arm  of  the  said  ship 
'Alliance'  until  he  is  dead." 

The  Board  of  Admiralty  laid  the  pro 
ceedings  of  this  courtr-martial  before  Congress 
in  July,  1781,  but  owing  to  the  confusion  of 
the  naval  business  at  this  time,  and  to  the 
carelessness  of  Congress,  no  action  was 
taken  on  them.  When  John  Brown,  the 
naval  agent  of  the  Agent  of  Marine,  reached 

1.  The  29th  article  of  Adams's  rules  as 
adopted  by  Congress  in  1775  fixed  penalties 
for  desertion  and  cowardice.  It  is  not  likely 
that  the  numbering  was  changed.  I  know  of 
no  earlier  instance  of  the  sentencing  of  a  sea 
man  in  the  American  navy  to  be  hanged. 


232  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

Boston,  towards  the  end  of  1781,  he  found 
the  three  men  in  prison,  waiting  the  execu 
tion  of  their  sentences,  and  "perishing  with 
cold  for  want  of  Cloathing."  The  fate  of 
the  three  men  is  best  told  in  Brown's  words : 
"Under  these  circumstances  it  was  the  opin 
ion  of  the  Board  (and  I  agreed  with  them) 
that  as  the  proceedings  had  lain  so  long  be 
fore  Congress  without  anything  being  done, 
and  it  being  uncertain  when  they  would  act 
upon  them,  to  save  expence  it  was  best  to 
dispose  of  the  Men  in  the  best  manner  we 
could.  Accordingly  the  two  who  were  sen 
tenced  to  be  whipped  were  put  on  board  the 
Deane,  the  other  was  sold  by  the  Sheriff 
to  pay  his  bill  of  fees,  keeping,  &c.,  and  with 
the  surplus  of  the  money  he  procured  us 
three  good  seamen  for  the  Deane.  My  mo 
tive  for  concurring  in  this  proceeding  was  to 
save  expence  and  preserve  the  public  Money 
in  my  hands  for  more  Material  purposes/31 

In  December,  1781,  and  January,  1782, 
Congress  passed  an  ordinance,  "in  pursu 
ance  of  the  powers  delegated  by  the  Con 
federation/'  which  codified  in  great  part  the 
previous  legislation  on  captures  and  con 
demnation  of  prizes,  recaptures  and  sal 
vage,  contraband,  and  the  sharing  of  prizes 


1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137,  I,  367,  Finding  of  Court  Martial, 
dated  June  28,  1781;  365,  Morris  to  President 
of  Congress,  March  25,  1782,  containing  ex 
tract  from  Brown's  letter. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  233 

between  the  captors  and  the  government 
and  between  the  captors  themselves.  Sev 
eral  changes  were  made  in  previous  resolu 
tions,  and  a  few  new  ones  were  added.  On 
their  receiving  a  reasonable  salvage,  the  re- 
captors  of  negroes,  mulattoes,  Indians, 
and  indented  servants,  were  to  return  all 
such  property  to  its  owners.  The  new  or 
dinance  specified  in  some  detail  the  various 
forms  of  property  which  were  subject  to  cap 
ture.  It  contained  a  revised  list  of  articles 
of  contraband.  It  declared  that  the  rules 
of  decision  in  the  several  admiralty  courts 
should  be  "the  resolutions  and  ordinances 
of  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled, 
public  treaties  when  declared  to  be  so  by  an 
act  of  Congress,  and  the  law  of  nations,  ac 
cording  to  the  general  usages  of  Europe;7' 
public  treaties  were  given  precedence  over 
the  two  other  classes  of  rules.1  This  ordi 
nance  went  into  operation  on  February  1, 
1782.  Its  importance  is  diminished  by 
reason  of  its  being  in  force  during  only  the 
last  year  of  the  war,  when  the  naval  activi 
ties  of  the  American  fleets  had  decreased. 

It  is  believed  that  this  ordinance  was  en 
tirely  the  work  of  Congress.  Indeed,  it  soon 
appeared  that  there  was  at  least  one  pro 
vision,  the  giving  of  the  whole  of  certain 
prizes  to  captors  on  board  of  Continental 
vessels,  which  the  Agent  of  Marine  disap- 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  De 
cember  4,  1781,  January  8,  1782. 


231  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

proved.  In  June,  1782,  Morris  made  a  re 
port  to  Congress  in  which  he  showed  that, 
owing  to  the  government's  liberality  to  its 
officers  and  seamen,  it  had  lost  ten  thousand 
dollars  on  the  late  successful  cruise  of  the 
frigate  "Deane,"  during  which  she  had  cap 
tured  five  prizes  of  considerable  value.  He 
thought  that  wages,  bounties,  and  one-half 
of  prizes  were  quite  sufficient  inducements 
for  manning  the  fleet.  In  all  cases,  however, 
in  which  the  capture  of  a  vessel  of  the  enemy 
was  especially  meritorious, Morris  would  have 
Congress  encourage  and  stimulate  effort 
and  merit  in  the  navy  by  giving  the.  captors, 
by  a  special  act  of  Congress,  the  wrhole  of 
their  prizes.  On  July  10,  1782,  Congress 
passed  an  ordinance  embodying  Morris's 
recommendations.1 

When  Morris,  on  September  7,  1781,  be 
came  Agent  of  Marine,  the  direction  of  the 
movements  of  the  Continental  vessels  was 
vested  in  him,  but  with  a  serious  limitation ; 
he  was  authorized  to  employ  the  armed 
cruisers  "according  to  such  instructions  as 
he  shall,  from  time  to  time,  receive  from 
Congress."  Morris  could  never  abide  in 
definite  grants  of  power  which  confused 
authority;  and  he  therefore,  by  means  of  a 
cleverly  written  letter,  elicited  a  resolution 
from  Congress  giving  him  full  power  "to  fit 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137,  I,  559,  Morris  to  President  of  Con- 
gress,  June  20,  1782;  Journals  of  Continental 
ongress,  July  10,  1782. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  235 

out  and  employ  the  ships  of  war  belonging 
to  these  United  States,  in  such  manner  as 
shall  appear  to  him  best  calculated  to  pro 
mote  the  interest  of  these  United  States."1 

When  Morris  fell  heir  to  the  duties  of  the 
Naval  Department,  in  the  summer  of  1781, 
the  Continental  navy  was  reduced  to  small 
numbers.  There  were  in  active  service  only 
five  captains  and  seven  lieutenants  in  the 
navy,  and  three  captains  and  three  lieuten 
ants  in  the  marine  corps.  Including  with 
these,  those  officers  who  were  unemployed, 
were  in  private  service,  were  prisoners,  or 
were  on  parole,  there  w^ere  twenty-two  cap 
tains  and  thirty-nine  lieutenants  in  the 
navy,  and  twelve  captains  and  twelve  lieu 
tenants  in  the  marine  corps.2  Only  three 
vessels  were  now  in  commission;  the  frigate 
"Trumbull,"  28,  at  Philadelphia,  and  the 
"Alliance,"  36,  and  "Deane,"  32,  at  Boston. 
The  "America"  and  "Bourbon"  were  still 
on  the  stocks.  About  the  first  of  Septem 
ber,  1782,  Morris  purchased  the  ship  "Wash 
ington,"  20,  and  in  October  he  took  over 
into  the  Continental  service  in  payment  for 
a  debt  the  ship  "Due  de  Lauzun,"  20. 

The  movements  of  the  fleet  under  Morris's 
direction  were  marked,  as  formerly,  by  bits 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137,  I,  137,  Morris  to  President  of  Con 
gress,    September  10,    1781;  Journals  of   Con 
gress,  September  12,  1781. 

2.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  37,  p.  473. 


236  A  ai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

of  good  and  bad  fortune,  encounters  with 
naval  ships,  privateers,  and  merchantmen,  . 
and  voyages  to  France  and  the  West  Indies. 
From  the  summer  of  1781  until  the  end  of 
the  war  the  little  fleet  captured  twenty 
prizes,  some  fifteen  of  which  reached  safe 
ports.  The  last  of  his  Majesty's  vessels  to 
surrender  to  a  Continental  ship  was  the 
schooner  "Jackall,"  20,  Commander  Logic, 
which  was  taken  in  the  spring  of  1782  by 
Captain  Samuel  Nicholson,  when  in  com 
mand  of  the  "Deane,"  or  the  "Hague,"  as 
she  was  now  called.  By  a  singular  coinci 
dence  the  first,  and  the  last,  valuable  prize 
captured  by  a  Continental  ship  during  the 
Revolution,  were  taken  by  Captain  John 
Manly.  On  one  of  the  last  days  of  Novem 
ber,  1775,  he  received  the  surrender  of  the 
brig  "Nancy,"  a  transport;  and  in  January, 
1783,  while  in  command  of  the  "Hague"  he 
captured  the  ship  "Bailie"  of  340  tons  bur 
den,  with  a  cargo  consisting  of  sixteen  hun 
dred  barrels  of  provisions.1 

One  of  the  most  interesting,  varied,  and 
fortunate  cruises  of  the  war  was  made  by 
Captain  John  Barry  in  the  "Alliance,"  36, 
one  of  the  largest  and  best-built  vessels  of 
the  Continental  navy.  Barry  left  New 
London  on  August  4,  1782,  and  having 
visited  the  region  of  the  Bermudas,  and  the 
Grand  Banks  of  Newfoundland,  he  sailed 
eastward  and  overhauled  a  fleet  of  Jamai- 

1.      Boston  Gazette,  January  27,  1783. 


Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution  237 

camen,  and  arrived  at  L'Orient  on  October 
17.  He  had  captured  nine  prizes,  four  of 
which  he  carried  into  L'Orient.  These  four 
ships  were  Jamaicamen,  and  with  their  rich 
cargoes  of  rum  and  sugar, they  sold  f  or  £620,- 
610,  one  of  the  largest  sums  realized  on 
any  cruise  during  the  Revolution.  On  De 
cember  8,  Captain  Barry  left'  France  for  the 
West  Indies.  Having  made  a  call  at  Ma 
deira,  Barry  early  in  January,  1783,  an 
chored  at  St.  Pierre,  Martinique,  where  he 
found  a  letter  from  the  Agent  of  Marine  or 
dering  him  to  proceed  to  Havana  and  con 
voy  the  "Due  de  Lauzun"  to  Philadelphia. 
About  the  first  of  February  the  "Alliance" 
arrived  at  Havana,  after  she  had  put  into 
St.  Eustatius  and  Cape  Francois,  and  had 
been  chased  by  one  fleet  off  Porto  Rico  and 
another  off  Hispaniola.  On  account  of  the 
closing  of  the  port  of  Havana,  Barry  was 
detained  here  a  month.  After  consider 
able  correspondence  with  the  Governor  of 
Havana,  Barry  on  March  6  was  permitted 
to  sail  with  his  convoy,  which  had  on  board 
seventy-two  thousand  dollars  in  specie.  On 
March  10,  1783,  Barry  fell  in  with  a  British 
vessel,  which  is  said  to  have  been  the  frigate 
"Sibylle,"  32,  and  he  now  fought  the  last 
naval  engagement  of  the  Revolution.  It 
lasted  forty-five  minutes,  ended  indecis 
ively,  and  resulted  in  the  loss  of  ten  men  on 
board  the  "Alliance;"  the  loss  of  the  British 
is  unknown.  The  two  American  vessels 


238  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

now  parted  company,  and  each  soon  reached 
a  safe  port;  the  "Alliance"  arrived  at  New 
port,  Rhode  Island,  on  March  20,  and  the 
"Due  de  Lauzun"  anchored  at  Philadelphia 
on  March  21.  It  was  now  two  months  since 
the  Preliminary  Articles  of  Peace  had  been 
signed  at  Versailles.1  The  naval  move 
ments  of  the  Continental  vessels  during  the 
Revolution  ended  with  the  arrivals  of  these 
two  vessels. 

While  Morris  had  the  direction  of  the 
fleet,  only  one  vessel  was  captured  by  the 
enemy,  and  this  before  he  became  Agent  of 
Marine.  In  July,  1781,  he  ordered  the 
"Trumbull,"  28,  Captain  James  Nicholson, 
to  proceed  to  Havana  with  despatches,  let 
ters,  and  a  cargo  of  flour.  The  "Tronbull" 
had  scarcely  cleared  the  Capes  of  the  Dela 
ware,  on  August  8,  when  she  was  chased  by 
the  frigate  "Iris,"  32,  Captain  George  Daw- 
son.  Encountering  a  storm,  the  "Trum- 
bull"  was  dismasted,  and  thus  crippled  she 
was  overtaken  by  the  "Iris."  The  "Trum 
bull  V  crew  were  a  sorry  lot;  some  of  them 
were  British  deserters,  and  others  were  cow 
ardly  and  disaffected.  It  was  late  in  the 
evening  when  the  fight  began.  Many  of 
the  crew  now  put  out  their  battle  lanterns 
and  flew  from  their  quarters.  Captain 


1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137,  II,  103;  M.  I.  J.  Griffin,  Commodore 
John  Barry,  162-248,  prints  many  contempora 
neous  papers  relating  to  Barry's  cruise. 


Nai'v  of  the  American  Revolution   239 

Nicholson  and  his  officers,  with  a  handful  of 
seamen,  bravely  defended  their  ship  against 
impossible  odds  for  an  hour  before  they  sur 
rendered.  Nicholson  lost  sixteen  men;  two 
of  his  lieutenants  were  wounded.  It  is  re 
called  that  the  "Iris"  was  originally  the 
"Hancock,"  of  the  Continental  navy,  and 
that  she  was  the  first  of  the  thirteen  origi 
nal  frigates  to  surrender  to  the  enemy. 
The  "Iris"  was  a  fast  ship,  and  is  said  to 
have  made  the  fortunes  of  all  the  British 
captains  that  commanded  her.  It  was  the 
irony  of  fate  that  the  first  of  the  thirteen 
frigates  to  be  captured  should  receive  the 
surrender  of  the  last  remaining  one.  A  let 
ter  from  New  York,  dated  August  11,  1781, 
informs  us  that  "this  day  arrived  the  cel 
ebrated  rebel  frigate  named  the  Trumbull."1 
The  attempts  of  Morris,  in  1782,  to  ob 
tain  an  increase  in  the  naval  force  of  Con 
gress,  form  one  of  the  most  interesting  and 
characteristic  parts  of  his  naval  work.  The 
surrender  of  Cornwallis  on  October  19,  1781, 
was  not  considered  by  many  contemporane 
ous  Americans  as  an  event  that  must  neces 
sarily  end  the  Revolution.  Indeed,  the 
final  outcome  of  the  war  was  in  doubt  for 
more  than  a  year.  The  Agent  of  Marine 
was  too  cautious  and  conservative  to  count 
on  peace  before  its  actual  accomplishment 
had  been  sealed  by  a  formal  treaty.  After 

1.      Clowes,  Royal  Navy,  IV,  72,  73;  Penn 
sylvania  Packet,  August  16,  1781. 


240  Xaz'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

the  surrender  of  Corn  wall  is  he  not  only  con 
tinued  to  send  the  Continental  cruisers 
against  the  enemy,  but  whenever  an  occa 
sion  presented,  he  vigorously  urged  on  Con 
gress  the  necessity  of  a  naval  increase.  To 
the  mind  of  Morris  the  need  of  a  navy  in  1782 
was  greater  than  it  had  been  at  any  previous 
time  during  the  Revolution.  He  conceived 
that  up  to  this  time  Britain  had  attempted 
to  conquer  the  Colonies  on  land  by  means  of 
her  army;  since  she  had  been  defeated  in 
this,  it  was  now  her  purpose  to  starve  the 
Colonies  into  submission  by  means  of  her 
navy  $hd  superior  sea-power.  The  United 
States  must  meet  the  enemy's  change  of  tac 
tics  by  building  a  navy. 

In  April,  1782,  Morris  took  steps  to  have 
the  frigate  "Bourbon"  completed.  Con 
gress  was  not  convinced  of  the  expediency 
of  this,  and  was  inclined  to  sell  the  frigate 
in  its  unfinished  state.  Morris  wrote  re 
provingly  to  Congress  that  the  most  econom 
ical  thing  to  do  was  to  complete  the  vessel; 
and  that  "there  is  also  a  degree  of  Dignity 
in  carrying  through  such  measures  as  Con 
gress  have  once  adopted,  unless  some  change 
of  circumstances  renders  the  execution  im 
proper."  He  then  added:  "The  present 
circumstances  of  the  United  States  I  appre 
hend  to  be  such  as  should  induce  our  atten 
tion  to  the  re-establishment  of  a  Naval 
Force,'  and  altho'  former  attempts  have 
proved  unfortunate,  we  must  not  take  it  for 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  241 

granted  that  future  Essays  will  be  unsuc 
cessful.  Altho7  the  Naval  Force  of  our  ene 
my  is  powerful,  and  their  Ships  Numerous, 
yet  that  Force  is  opposed  by  equal  Numbers, 
so  as  to  give  them  much  more  employment 
than  at  the  time  our  infant  Fleet  was 
Crushed."1 

On  May  10,  1782,  in  response  to  a  request 
of  Congress,  Morris  submitted  an  exhaustive 
report  on  the  state  of  American  commerce. 
Referring  to  the  intentions  of  the  British, 
he  declared  that  having  been  compelled  to 
abandon  the  idea  of  conquest,  their  avowed 
design  was  to  annihilate  the  American  com 
merce.  The  plans  of  the  enemy  could  be 
frustrated  and  the  American  trade  protected 
by  so  small  a  fleet  as  two  ships  of  the  line 
and  ten  frigates.  The  ships  of  the  line,  to 
gether  with  two  frigates,  should  be  stationed 
in  the  Chesapeake,  to  cruise  as  occasion 
might  require.  The  frigates  should  be  di 
vided  into  two  equal  squadrons,  each  of 
which  should  serve  as  a  convoy  of  the  Amer 
ican  trade  between  the  United  States  and 
France.  By  each  squadron  making  two 
round  trips  a  year,  a  quarterly  communica 
tion  both  ways  between  these  two  countries 
would  be  established.  The  United  States 
of  course  could  not  provide  this  service,  but 
the  ships  which  the  plan  required  might 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137,  I,  415,  Morris  to  President  of  Con 
gress,  April  24,  1782. 


242  A'fli'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

be  detailed  from  the  French  or  Spanish  fleet . 
"It  is  to  be  hoped,"  Morris  said,  "that  if  the 
war  continues  much  longer,  the  United 
States  will  be  able  to  provide  the  necessary 
force  for  themselves,  which  at  present  they 
are  not,  tho'  if  the  above  arrangements  take 
place,  they  might  now  provide  for  the  trade 
from  America  to  the  West  Indies."  Con 
gress  authorized  Morris  to  apply  to  both 
Spain  and  France  for  the  needed  vessels.1 

But  a  more  extensive  naval  plan  than  this 
was  in  Morris's  mind,  and  one  which  could  be 
undertaken  independent  of  foreign  ships. 
On  July  30,  1782,  he  submitted  to  Congress 
an  estimate  for  the  public  services  of  the 
United  States  for  the  year  1783,  amounting 
in  all  to  eleven  millions  of  dollars.  More 
than  one-fifth  of  this  sum  was  to  be  spent 
on  the  navy.  "  Congress  will  observe,"  he 
said,1"  that  the  estimates  for  the  Marine  De 
partment  amount  to  two  Millions  and  a 
half,  whereas  there  was  no  Estimate  made 
for  that  Service  in  the  last  year  any  more 
than  for  the  civil  list."  Morris  based  this 
most  remarkable  recommendation  for  a  na 
val  increase  on  the  belief  that  the  enemy 
had  changed  his  mode  of  warfare,  and  that  it 
was  now  his  purpose  to  annihilate  the  com 
merce  of  America,  and  thus  starve  her  into 
submission.  With  this  sort  of  a  campaign, 
conducted  by  the  enemy,  an  American  army 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137, 1, 447,  Report  of  Morris,  May  10, 1782. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  243 

without  a  navy  would  be  burdensome  with 
out  being  able  to  accomplish  anything. 
With  a  navy,  we  could  prevent  the  enemy 
from  making  predatory  excursions,  ruining 
our  commerce,  and  capturing  our  supplies; 
he  would  either  be  compelled  to  keep  a  su 
perior  naval  force  in  this  country,  which 
wrould  give  our  allies  a  naval  superiority 
elsewhere;  or  else  he  must  permit  the  bal 
ance  of  naval  strength  in  America  to  be  on 
our  side;  in  which  latter  case  we  could  pro 
tect  our  trade,  annoy  his  commerce  and  cut 
off  the  supplies  which  he  wrould  be  sending  to 
his  posts  in  America.  Then,  concluded 
Morris  in  words  which  remind  one  of  the  an 
nual  report  of  some  recent  Secretary  of  the 
Navy  asking  for  the  yearly  quota  of  battle 
ships:  "By  oeconomizing  our  Funds  and 
constructing  six  ships  annually  we  should 
advance  so  rapidly  to  Maritime  importance 
that  our  enemy  would  be  convinced  not 
only  of  the  Impossibility  of  subduing  us, 
but  also  of  the  Certainty  that  his  forces  in 
this  Country  must  eventually  be  lost  with 
out  being  able  to  produce  him  any  possible 
Advantage;5'  and  we  should  in  this  way 
regain  the  "full  Possession  of  our  Country 
without  the  Expence  of  Blood,  or  treasure, 
which  must  attend  any  other  Mode  of  Oper 
ations,  and'  w^hile  we  are  pursuing  those 
Steps  which  lead  to  the  Possession  of  our 
natural  Strength  and  Defence."1 

1.      Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con- 


244  A'orc'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

The  signing  on  November  30,  1782,  of  the 
Provisional  Articles  of  Peace  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  news  of 
which  reached  America  early  in  the  spring 
of  1783,  removed  the  necessity  of  a  naval 
increase,  and  in  the  minds  of  many  the  need 
of  a  navy  at  all.  Morris  did  not  at  once 
give  up  the  notion  that  the  government  on 
a  peace  footing  should  maintain  a  respect 
able  marine.  In  May,  1783,  he  asked  Con 
gress  to  relieve  him  of  his  naval  duties. 
"The  affairs  of  the  Marine  Department,"  he 
writes,  "occupy  more  time  and  attention 
than  I  can  easily  spare.  This  Department 
will  now  become  important,  and  I  hope 
extensive.  I  must  therefore  request  that 
Congress  will  be  pleased  to  appoint  an 
Agent  of  Marine  as  soon  as  their  conven 
ience  will  admit/'1  He  became  convinced 
however  that  not  much  could  be  done  for 
the  navy  until  the  finances  of  Congress  were 
placed  on  a  better  and  more  permanent 
basis.  In  July,  1783,  Morris  made  a  report 
on  a  proposition  of  Virginia  offering  to  sell 
her  naval  ship  "Cormorant"  to  the  United 
States.  Congress  agreed  to  his  report, 
which  was  as  follows:  "That  although  it 
is  an  object  highly  desirable,  to  establish  a 
respectable  marine,  yet  the  situation  of  the 
gress,  137,  I,  713,  Estimate  for  public  services 
for  1783,  July  30,  1782. 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137,  II,  425,  Morris  to  President  of  Con 
gress,  May  3,  1783. 


Naz>y  of  the  American  Revolution  245 

public  treasury  renders  it  not  advisable  to 
purchase  ships  for  the  present,  nor  until  the 
several  states  shall  grant  such  funds  for  the 
construction  of  ships,  docks,  naval  arsenals, 
and  for  the  support  of  the  naval  service,  as 
shall  enable  the  United  States  to  establish 
their  marine  upon  a  permanent  and  re 
spectable  footing."1 

Meanwhile,  Congress  had  been  rapidly  go 
ing  out  of  the  naval  business,  by  formally 
ending  the  war  at  sea,  by  providing  for  the 
settlement  of  marine  accounts,  and  by  dis 
posing  of  its  naval  stock.  Oh  March  24, 
1783,  it  ordered  the  Agent  of  Marine  to  re 
call  all  armed  vessels  cruising  under  the 
American  colors.  On  April  11  it  issued  a 
"  Proclamation,  Declaring  the  Cessation  of 
arms,  as  well  by  Sea  as  by  Land,  agreed 
upon  between  the  United  States  of  America 
and  His  Britannic  Majesty;  and  enjoining 
the  observance  thereof/'  On  April  15  it 
ordered  the  Agent  of  Marine  to  set  free  all 
the  naval  prisoners  of  the  enemy.2 

During  the  last  year  of  the  Revolution 
and  for  several  years  after  its  close,  one  of 
the  principal  administrative  tasks  of  the 
government  was  the  settling  of  the  outstand- 
ing  accounts  of  the  several  executive  de- 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137,   II,  725,  Report  of  Morris,  July  31, 
1783;  Journals  of   Continental   Congress,   Au 
gust  5,  1783. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress    March 
24,  April  11,  April  15,  1783. 


246  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

partments.  This  was  a  work  fraught  with 
extraordinary  difficulties.  The  administra 
tion  of  a  government  founded  and  conducted 
amid  the  distractions  of  war  was  necessarily 
marked  by  irregularities  in  official  procedure, 
the  lack  of  system  in  accounting,  and  in 
general  by  haphazard  ways  of  business.  On 
February  27,  1782,  Congress  acting  on  the 
recommendation  of  Morris  authorized  him 
to  appoint  five  commissioners  with  full 
power  and  authority  to  liquidate  and  finally 
settle  the  Revolutionary  accounts.  Each 
commissioner  was  paid  $1,500  a  year;  he 
was  permitted  to  employ  a  clerk.  The 
states  were  recommended  to  empower  the 
commissioners  to  examine  witnesses  under 
oath.  Each  commissioner  was  given  charge 
of  a  certain  class  of  accounts;  to  one  of  the 
five  men  fell  the  settling  of  the  accounts  of 
the  Naval  Department.  Owing  to  Morris's 
caution  in  making  appointments,  and  to  the 
obstacles  that  stood  in  the  way  of  a  wise 
choice,  the  "  commissioner  for  settling  the 
accounts  of  the  marine  department"  was 
not  selected  until  June  19,  1783,  when  Jo 
seph  Pennell,  the  paymaster  of  the  Marine 
Office,  was  named  for  the  place.1  By  the 
fall  of  1783  Pennell  was  settled  in  his  work, 
and  was  complaining  of  its  arduousness. 
He  soon  found  himself  involved  in  a  dispute 
with  the  members  of  the  old  Naval  Com- 

1.      Journals   of    Continental  Congress,  Feb 
ruary  27,  1782,  June  19,  1783. 


A'aT'v  of  the  American  Revolution  247 

mittee.  He  said  that  they  had  received 
money  from  Congress  for  which  they  had 
not  accounted;  and  that,  according  to  the 
vouchers,  they  had  paid  one  debt  twice. 
He  found  that  the  members  of  the  Marine 
Committee  were  individually  charged  with 
the  moneys  they  had  received;  and  that 
when  they  left  the  Committee,  they  made 
no  settlement.  In  many  instances  vouchers 
were  lacking.  Statements  from  members  of 
the  Navy  Boards  and  from  the  naval  agents 
could  be  obtained  only  with  great  difficulty, 
as  these  men  were  now  discharged,  and  they 
were  often  scattered.  He  discovered  that 
the  prize  agents  made  no  uniform  charge 
for  their  services;  some  exacted  five,  and 
others  two  and  a  half  per  cent  on  the  re 
ceipts  from  the  sale  of  prizes.  Offices  for 
settling  the  naval  accounts  were  opened  in 
Philadelphia,  New  York,  and  Boston.  On 
the  retirement  of  Morris,  Pennell  became  re 
sponsible  to  the  new  Board  of  Treasury.1 

In  the  last  year  of  the  war  Congress  began 
to  dispose  of  its  naval  craft.  On  September 
3,  1782,  the  74-gun  ship  " America"  now  at 
last  almost  ready  for  launching  was  on  the 
recommendation  of  the  Agent  of  Marine 
given  to  France  to  replace  the  ship  of  the 
line  "Magnifique,"  74,  which  the  French 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137,  III,  651,  655,  Morris  to  President  of 
Congress,  May  26,  1784,  enclosing  extract  of 
letter  of  Pennell. 


248  A'aiT  of  the  American  Revolution 

fleet  had  recently  lost  in  Boston  harbor. 
Congress,  "  desirous  of  testifying  on  this  oc 
casion  to  his  Majesty,  the  sense  they  enter 
tain  of  his  generous  exertions  in  behalf  of 
the  United  States/'  directed  the  Agent  of 
Marine  to  present  the  " America"  to  Lu- 
zerne,  the  French  minister  at  Philadelphia, 
for  the  service  of  His  Most  Christian  Majes 
ty.1  It  was  a  gracious  act  of  international 
friendship.  In  April,  1783,  the  "Due  de 
Lauzun"  was  lent  to  the  French  minister 
to  carry  home  some  French  troops,  after 
which  service  she  was  to  be  sold.2  In  July 
Morris  ordered  the  "Hague"  to  be  sold, 
and  recommended  to  Congress  a  like  dispo 
sition  of  the  "Bourbon,"  which  latter  ship 
in  all  probability  had  been  recently 
launched.3  In  March,  1784,  Morris  recom 
mended  the  sale  of  the  "Alliance,"  as  she 
was  "now  a  mere  bill  of  costs;"  and  also 
the  "Washington,"  because  much  money 
would  be  required  to  repair  her,  and  there 
was  no  need  to  employ  her  as  a  packet, 
since  the  French  and  English  had  estab 
lished  a  mail  service.4  Lieutenant  Joshua 


1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,   Sep 
tember  3,  1782. 

2.  Ibid.,  April  21,  1783. 

3.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  137,  III,  677,  Report  of  Morris,  July  22, 
1783. 

4.  Force  Transcripts,  Library  of  Congress, 
137,   3,   p.    243,    Report  of   Morris,   March    19, 
1784. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  249 

Barney,  acting  as  the  agent  for  the  Naval 
Department,  sold  the  " Washington"  in 
Baltimore  in  the  summer  of  1784. 

The  members  of  Congress  were  not  unani 
mous  on  the  question  of  the  proper  disposi 
tion  of  the  "Alliance."  On  January  15, 
1 784,  a  committee  of  three  reported :  "  That 
the  honour  of  the  Flag  of  the  United  States 
and  the  protection  of  its  trade  and  coasts 
from  the  insults  of  pirates  require  that  the 
Frigate  of  Alliance  should  be  repaired."1 
A  committee  in  March,  1784,  and  another  in 
May,  1785,  recommended  her  sale.2  Final 
ly,  on  June  3,  1785,  Congress  directed  the 
Board  of  Treasury  "to  sell  for  specie  or 
public  securities,  at  public  or  private  sale, 
the  frigate  Alliance,  with  her  tackle  and 
appurtenances."3  In  August,  1785,  the 
Board  of  Treasury  sold  this  vessel  for  £2,887, 
to  be  paid  in  United  States  certificates  of 
public  debt.  The  purchasers  afterwards 
sold  the  "Alliance"  at  a  great  profit  to 
Robert  Morris.  In  June,  1787,  this  vessel 
sailed  for  Canton,  China,  as  a  merchantman.4 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  28,  p.  221,  Report  of  Committee,  Janu 
ary  15,  1784. 

2.  Ibid.,   28,   pp.    213,   225-27,    Reports  of 
Committees. 

3.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress    June 
3,  1785. 

4.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  140,  11,45,  Board  of  Treasury  to  Presi 
dent   of   Congress,    August    5,    1785;    M.    I.    J. 
Griffin,  Commodore  John  Barry,  258-59. 


250  Aavy  of  the  American  Revolution 

From  the  sale  of  the  ''Alliance"  until  the 
establishment  of  a  new  navy  under  the 
Constitution  in  1794  it  was  left  to  the  stars 
and  stripes  floating  from  American  mer 
chantmen  to  familiarize  foreign  ports  and 
seas  with  the  symbol  of  the  new  Nation. 

Congress  did  not  formally  end  the  naval 
establishment  by  act  or  resolution,  unless 
one  considers  that  such  was  the  effect  of 
the  resolution  of  January  25,  1780,  which 
provided  that  the  pay  of  all  naval  officers 
except  those  in  actual  service  should  cease. 
After  this  date  it  would  seem  that  as  the 
vessels  were  captured,  sold,  or  thrown  out 
of  commission,  the  names  of  the  officers  were 
taken  from  the  pay-roll.  In  September, 
1783,  an  unsuccessful  attempt  was  made  in 
Congress  to  discontinue  the  Agent  of  Mar 
ine.1  Morris  continued  in  office  until  No 
vember  1,  1784,  when  he  retired  from  public 
service.  Congress  made  no  move  to  fill  his 
place  as  Agent  of  Marine,  for  there  was  little 
need  for  such  an  official.  Certain  unimpor 
tant  naval  business,  chiefly  concerned  with 
the  settlement  of  naval  accounts,  remained, 
however,  to  be  transacted.  This  for  the 
most  part  naturally  fell  to  the  Board  of 
Treasury,  organized  in  the  spring  of  1785. 
This  Board,  aided  by  the  commissioner  for 
settling  the  marine  accounts,  and  by  James 
Read,  the  efficient  secretary  to  the  Agent 

1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Sep 
tember  16,  1783. 


Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution  251 

of  Marine,  with  whom  Morris  on  retiring 
left  the  books  and  papers  of  the  Naval  De 
partment,  wound  up  the  small,  unimportant, 
and  dwindling  business  of  the  navy. 


CHAPTER    IX 

NAVAL     DUTIES    OF    AMERICAN     REPRE 
SENTATIVES  IN  FOREIGN  COUNTRIES 

On  the  outbreak  of  the  war  between  the 
Colonies  and  the  mother-country,  Congress 
turned  with  true  political  insight  to  France 
for  aid.  The  self-interest  of  no  other  coun 
try  in  Europe  gave  so  good  a  basis  for  friend 
ship  and  alliance  with  America.  To  France, 
the  success  of  the  revolting  British  Colonies 
meant  the  humbling  of  a  victorious  rival, 
the  turning  of  a  part  of  Britain's  valuable 
colonial  trade  into  French  channels,  and 
probably  a  reopening  of  the  trial  at  arms  of 
the  Seven  Years'  War  and  a  reversal  of  some 
of  its  humiliating  decisions.  Common  inter 
ests  led  the  two  countries  to  cooperate  in 
achieving  and  furthering  their  objects  and 
ambitions;  and  this  led  to  the  establishing 
of  intimate  diplomatic,  commercial,  and 
naval  relations  between  them.  Many  of  the 
duties  that  grew  out  of  these  three  classes 
of  relations  had  to  be  transacted  in  France, 
and  they  therefore  necessitated  the  appoint 
ment  of  American  representatives  to  be 
resident  in  that  country.  The  naval  duties 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   253 

of  these  representatives  were  numerous  and 
important.  They  involved  the  renting,  pur 
chase,  and  building  of  naval  vessels;  the 
officering,  manning,  and  fitting  out  of  ves 
sels;  the  directing  of  cruises;  the  purchase 
of  naval  supplies;  the  disciplining  of  officers; 
the  paying  of  officers  and  crews;  the  dispos 
ing  of  prizes;  the  devising  of  naval  plans;  the 
commissioning  of  privateers ;  the  caring  for 
naval  prisoners  and  the  negotiating  for 
their  exchange;  and  the  disseminating  of 
naval  intelligence.  The  vesting  of  these 
duties  in  the  American  representatives  in 
France  virtually  constituted  the  establish 
ment  of  a  Branch  Naval  Office  at  Paris.1 

Besides  the  above  duties,  which  may  be 
considered  strictly  naval  in  character,  the 
American  representatives  had  other  busi 
ness  closely  related  to  their  admiralty  work, 
but  which  was  also  intimately  connected 
with  their  diplomatic  and  commercial  work. 
For  instance,  dealings  with  breaches  of  neu 
trality  committed  by  American  ships  had 
to  do  equally  with  diplomatic  and  naval 
affairs.  The  selling  of  colonial  products 
which  the  Commercial  Committee  of  the 
Continental  Congress  exported  to  France, 

1.  For  convenience  the  term  "Naval  Of 
fice"  will  be  used  in  this  chapter.  It  will  be 
understood  of  course  that  there  existed  no 
"Naval  Office"  apart  from  the  Office  of  the 
American  representatives  at  Paris,  in  whom 
were  vested  diplomatic,  naval,  and  commer 
cial  duties. 


A'arv  of  tJic  American  Revolution 

and  the  buying  of  French  manufactures 
which  the  American  representatives  shipped 
to  America,  were  of  course  commercial  du 
ties.  These  transactions,  however,  came 
into  contact  with  naval  affairs  when  the 
goods  purchased  in  France  happened  to  be 
naval  stores,  or  when  naval  ships  carried 
the  goods  or  convoyed  the  merchantmen 
which  carried  them.  For  the  sake  of  ob 
taining  a  complete  view  of  the  admiralty 
work  of  the  American  representatives  in 
France,  this  chapter  will  touch  upon  naval 
duties  of  all  sorts  even  though  their  diplo 
matic  and  commercial  aspects  stand  out  the 
most  prominently. 

The  first  naval  business  of  the  Colonies  in 
France  fell  to  Silas  Deane,  a  political  and 
commercial  agent  of  the  Continental  Con 
gress,  who  arrived  at  Paris  in  July,  1776. 
In  December,  1776,  Deane  was  succeeded 
by  three  American  commissioners  to  the 
Court  of  France,  Benjamin  Franklin,  Silas 
Deane,  and  Arthur  Lee.  These  three  men 
shared  the  naval  duties  of  their  office  until 
the  spring  of  1778,  when  Deane  was  super 
seded  by  John  Adams.  In  February,  1779, 
Franklin,  who  had  been  chosen  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  at  the  Court  of  France,  fell 
heir  along  with  the  other  duties  of  the  com 
missioners  to  those  of  a  naval  character; 
and  he  continued  in  this  office  until  the  end 
of  the  Revolution.  Of  the  first  three  com 
missioners  Silas  Deane  had  the  most  to  do 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   255 

with  the  naval  business.  He  says  that  the 
management  of  the  Continental  ships  of 
war  and  of  their  prizes  which  was  a  "most 
complicated  and  embarrassing  part  of  our 
affairs "  fell  entirely  upon  himself.1  When 
Deane  was  superseded,  it  would  seem  that 
his  naval  duties  fell  to  Franklin  rather  than 
to  Adams.  Franklin  had  at  all  times  the 
chief  part  of  the  work  of  exchanging  naval 
prisoners  with  Great  Britain;  and  Adams 
excelled  the  other  commissioners  in  trans 
mitting  to  the  home  government  naval  in 
telligence. 

The  headquarters  of  the  Naval  Office  were 
of  course  situated  at  Paris,  several  hundred 
miles  from  the  ports  frequented  by  the  Con 
tinental  vessels.  This  was  a  great  disad 
vantage,  as  it  caused  delays  in  communicat 
ing  with  the  naval  officers  and  naval  agents, 
besides  other  inconveniences.  The  Office 
gave  its  orders  as  a  rule  by  letter,  but  now 
and  then  when  its  officers  and  agents  visited 
Paris,  it  communicated  with  them  by  word 
of  mouth.  Its  official  correspondence  with 
the  home  government  was  carried  on  al 
most  exclusively  with  the  " Foreign  Office" 
at  Philadelphia — that  is,  at  first  with  the 
Committee  of  Secret  Correspondence,  then 
with  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs,  and 
finally  with  the  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs. 
A  few  letters  passed  between  the  Naval 

1.  Ingraham,  Papers  relative  to  Silas  Deane, 
67. 


256  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

Office  at  Paris  and  the  Naval  Department 
in  America.  The  secretary  and  the  clerks, 
first  of  the  Commissioners,  and  later  of  the 
Minister  at  the  Court  of  France,  assisted  in 
transacting  the  naval  business. 

The  American  representatives  at  Paris 
employed  agents  in  a  number  of  the  chief 
Atlantic  ports  of  France  to  transact  their 
naval  and  commercial  business.  The  prin 
cipal  agencies  were  at  Nantes,  L'Oricnt, 
Bordeaux,  Brest,  and  Dunkirk.  There  were 
also  agencies  at  Bilbao,  and  Coruiia,  Spain; 
and  in  Holland.  It  is  difficult  to  separate 
the  naval  and  commercial  duties  of  these 
agencies,  as  they  were  vested  in  the  same 
men.  The  whole  subject  is  exceedingly 
complicated.  For  transacting  naval  busi 
ness,  Nantes  was  the  most  important  agency, 
although  L'Orient  was  not  far  behind  it.  At 
Nantes  in  1777  within  a  comparatively  short 
period  of  time  one  finds  Thomas  Morris,  a 
half-brother  of  Robert  Morris,  William  Lee, 
a  brother  of  Richard  Henry  Lee,  Jonathan 
Williams,  a  nephew  of  Franklin,  John  Ross, 
a  Philadelphia  merchant,  and  a  certain  Ger 
man  merchant  by  the  name  of  Schweig- 
hauser  exercising  similar  duties.  William 
Lee  was  for  a  time  commercial  agent  for  all 
of  France,  and  his  authority  of  course  came 
in  contact  with  that  of  the  Commissioners 
at  Paris.1  Such  divisions  and  duplications 

17  Wharton's  Diplomatic  Correspondence 
and  Ford's  Letters  of  William  Lee  are  the  best 
sources  for  the  work  of  these  agents. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  257 

of  powers  resulted  in  much  contention,  mis 
understanding,  and  jealousy.  John  Adams 
tells  us  that  when  he  arrived  in  France  in 
the  spring  of  1778  he  found  in  some  places 
two  or  three  persons  claiming  the  character 
of  American  agents;  and  that  at  one  port, 
three  agents  had  been  appointed,  one  by 
the  Commissioners  at  Paris,  another  by  the 
commercial  agent  of  France,  and  a  third 
by  the  Commercial  Committee  of  Congress. 
"We  have  such  abuses  and  irregularities 
every  day  occurring  as  are  very  alarming. 
Agents  of  various  sorts  are  drawing  bills 
upon  us,  and  the  commanders  of  vessels  of 
war  are  drawing  upon  us  for  expenses  and 
supplies  which  we  never  ordered."  Moved 
by  the  reformatory  zeal  that  so  often  char 
acterizes  the  new  appointee  to  public  office, 
Adams  attempted  to  reduce  the  business 
of  Congress  in  France  to  some  system.1 

The  Naval  Office  at  Paris  appointed  sev 
eral  naval  officers  by  filling  out  blank  com 
missions  and  warrants,  which  had  been 
signed  and  sent  by  the  President  of  Congress 
for  that  purpose.  Late  in  the  war  the 
question  arose  as  to  the  proper  rank  in  the 
navy  of  some  of  these  appointments.  In 
certain  specific  cases  which  were  referred  to 
Robert  Morris  as  Agent  of  Marine,  he  rec 
ommended  that  new  commissions  be  granted 

1.  Wharton,  Diplomatic  Correspondence 
II,  595,  Adams  to  Commercial  Committee, 
May  24,  1778. 


258  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

dated  as  the  old,  and  that  the  officers  re 
ceiving  them  take  rank  according  to  the 
dates  of  their  old  commissions.  The  Naval 
Office  granted  commissions  of  captain  to 
Gustavus  Conyngham,  Samuel  Nicholson, 
Peter  Landais,  and  John  Green.  On  the 
recommendation  of  John  Paul  Jones  it  ap 
pointed  Richard  Dale  to  be  a  lieutenant  on 
board  the  "Bon  Homme  Richard/'  Dale 
became  an  officer  of  distinction  in  the  new 
navy  under  the  Constitution,  where  he  rose 
to  the  rank  of  commodore.  Landais  was 
the  only  Frenchman  who  received  a  perma 
nent  commission  as  captain  in  the  Continen 
tal  navy. 

Silas  Deane  had  a  penchant  for  recom 
mending  French  officers;  and  he  was  very 
credulous  as  to  the  compliments  expressed 
by  themselves  and  their  friends  in  their  be 
half.  On  November  28,  1776,  Deane  wrote 
to  the  Committee  of  Secret  Correspondence 
as  follows,  having  just  referred  to  certain 
army  officers  whom  he  was  sending  to 
America:  "As  to  sea  officers,  they  are  not 
so  easily  obtained,  yet  some  good  ones  may 
be  had,  and  in  particular  two,  one  of  whom 
I  have  already  mentioned;  the  other  is 
quite  his  equal,  with  some  other  advantages; 
he  was  first  lieutenant  of  a  man-of-war, 
round  the  World  with  Captain  Cook,  and 
has  since  had  a  ship,  but  wants  to  leave 
this  for  other  service  where  he  may  make  a 
settlement  and  establish  a  family.  These 


Xai'y  of  the  American  Ra^olution  259 

two    officers    would    engage    a    number   of 
younger  ones,  should  they  embark.     I  send 
herewith    the    plans    of   one    of   them    for 
burning   ships."     The   French   officer   who 
designed  these  plans,  also  made  "  drafts  of 
ships  and  rates  for  constructing  and  regu 
lating  a  navy,"  of  which  Deane  had  the 
"  highest  opinion."     This  officer,  Deane  said, 
"has  seen  much  service,  is  a  person  of  study 
and  letters,  as  well  as  fortune,  and  is  ambi 
tious  of  planning  a  navy  for  America,  which 
shall  at  once  be  much  cheaper  and  more 
effectual  than  anything  of  the  kind  which 
can  be  produced  on  the  European  system."1 
That  Deane  gave  too  ready  an  ear  to  the 
soft  words  of  the  French,  is  clear  from  his 
extravagant   recommendations    of   the    er 
ratic  and  troublesome  French  captain,  Peter 
Landais.     Deane  said  that  Landais  would 
be  a  "valuable  acquisition  to  our  Navy;" 
and  that  he  was  a  "skilful  seaman  of  long 
Experience  in  every  Part  of  the  World,  of 
good  judgment   and  the  most  unsuspicious 
honor  and  Probity."     In  May,  1778,  Con 
gress  continued  Landais  in  the  naval  service ; 
but    directed    "the    commissioners    of   the 
United   States    at   foreign   courts"   not  to 
"recommend   any  foreign  sea-officers,   nor 
give  any  of  them  the  least  expectation  of 

1.  Wharton,  Diplomatic  Correspondence 
II,  191,  200,  Deane  to  Committee  of  Secret 
Correspondence,  November  6,  November  28, 
1776. 


260  Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

being  employed  as  captains  in  the  navy."1 
The  Naval  Office  at  Paris  issued  a  few 
commissions  to  prhateers.  As  early  as 
October,  1776,  Deane  was  writing -to  the 
Committee  of  Secret  Correspondence  for 
blank  commissions.  Private  as  well  as  pub 
lic  interests  were  involved  in  the  cruises  of 
Captain  Gustavus  Conyngham  in  European 
waters.  Carmichael,  a  Marylander  and  an 
employee  in  France  of  Congress  and  the 
Commissioners  at  Paris,  asserted  that  Deane 
in  1777  intended  to  equip  a  vessel  in  the 
Mediterranean  sea  partly  on  public  and 
partly  on  private  account,  that  an  agent 
was  employed  who  succeeded  in  buying  a 
vessel,  but  that  the  state  of  Genoa  inter 
posed  and  stopped  the  enterprise.2  Two  fa 
mous,  or  better  infamous,  letters  of  marque 
were  fitted  out  at  Dunkirk  and  commis 
sioned  by  the  Naval  Office  in  1779.  They 
were  named  the  " Black  Prince"  and  the 
"  Black  Princess."  Their  crews  were  a 
malodorous  medley,  containing  "a  few 
Americans,  mixed  with  Irish  and  English 
smugglers."  These  smugglers  had  recently 
broken  prison  in  Dublin,  recaptured  their 
smuggling  vessel,  and  escaped  to  Dunkirk, 
Should  they  be  recaptured  by  the  English 


1.  Collections  of  New  York  Historical  So 
ciety,  Deane  Papers,  II,  122;  Journals  of  Con 
tinental  Congress,  May  9,   1778. 

2.  Ingraham,     Papers     relative     to     Silas 
Deane,  141-49. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  261 

and  their  identity  be  discovered,  they  would 
be  forced  to  suffer  the  penalty  for  smuggling. 
As  they  spoke  English,  it  was  thought  that 
their  past  character  might  be  best  concealed 
by  giving  them  an  American  commission, 
instead  of  a  French  one.  These  two  priva 
teers  captured  or  destroyed  upwards  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty  sail  of  the  British,  and 
insulted  "the  coasts  of  these  lords  of  the 
ocean."  In  the  summer  of  1780,  the 
"Black  Prince"  was  wrecked  on  the  coast 
of  France,  and  the  commission  of  the  "Black 
Princess,"  upon  the  request  of  Vergennes, 
the  French  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  was 
recalled  by  Franklin.1  In  1780  certain 
American  prisoners,  who  had  escaped,  fitted 
out  a  privateer  at  Cadiz  in  Spain  and  asked 
Jay,  the  American  minister  at  Madrid,  for 
a  commission.  He  referred  them  to  Frank 
lin.2 

When  the  American  Commissioners  as 
sembled  in  Paris  in  December,  1776,  to  begin 
their  mission,  they  had  with  them  the  orders 
of  Congress  to  purchase,  arm,  and  equip  a 
frigate  and  two  cutters.  They  were  to  send 
the  frigate  cruising  against  the  enemy  in 
the  English  channel,  and  were  to  employ 
the  cutters  in  transporting  supplies  to 

1.  Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence, 
III,    802-03;    IV,    26,   33;  Kale's  Franklin   in 
France,  I,  chapter  XVI,  Privateers  from  Dun 
kirk. 

2.  Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence 
III,  731. 


262  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

America.  The  Commissioners  were  fur 
ther  directed  to  hire  or  buy  at  the  French 
Court  eight  line  of  battle  ships.1  They  be 
gan  to  carry  out  these  orders  in  January, 
1777,  when  Captain  Samuel  Nicholson  was 
sent  to  Boulogne  to  purchase  one  of  the 
cutters;  in  the  spring  a  lugger  was  obtained 
at  Dover,  England ;  and  in  the  early  summer 
another  cutter  was  bought  at  Dunkirk.  In 
the  two  latter  transactions  William  Hodge, 
a  merchant  from  Philadelphia,  acted  as  the 
agent  of  the  Commissioners.  Early  in  the 
year  Captain  Lambert  Wickes,  who  had  in 
December,  1776,  arrived  in  France  in  the 
Continental  sloop  "  Reprisal"  with  Dr. 
Franklin  on  board,  was  inspecting  vessels  for 
the  Commissioners.  Nicholson's  cutter  was 
named  the  " Dolphin;"  and  Hodge's  two 
vessels  were  called,  respectively,  the  "  Sur 
prise"  and  the  "  Revenge."  It  is  believed 
that  the  "Revenge"  was  purchased  jointly 
on  public  and  private  account.  After  this 
vessel's  first  cruise  it  is  known  that  Hodge 
and  possibly  others  were  pecuniarily  inter 
ested  in  its  ventures. 

By  the  fall  of  1777  the  Commissioners  had 
completed  the  construction  of  a  32-gun  fri 
gate  at  Nantes,  which  they  called  the 
"Deane."  They  also  purchased  a  ship 
which  they  fitted  out  as  a  28-gun  frigate 


1.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  Octo 
ber  3,  1776;  Wharton,  Diplomatic  Correspon 
dence,  II,  177. 


XcK'y  of  the  American  Revolution  263 

and  named  the  "Queen  of  France."  Early  in 
1778  they  sent  the  "Deane"  under  the 
command  of  Captain  Samuel  Nicholson,  and 
the  "Queen  of  France"  under  the  command 
of  Captain  John  Green,  both  vessels  laden 
with  supplies,  to  Boston.  The  "Deane"  re 
mained  in  the  navy  until  the  end  of  the 
Revolution.  The  "Queen  of  France"  was 
surrendered  to  the  British  in  May,  1780,  on 
the  fall  of  Charleston,  South  Carolina.  On 
the  application  of  the  Commissioners  to  the 
French  Court  for  the  loan  or  sale  of  some 
ships  of  the  line,  they  were  told  that  the 
French  government  considered  it  absolutely 
necessary  to  keep  the  whole  of  its  fleet  at 
home  ready  for  the  defence  of  France  in 
case  of  a  rupture  with  Great  Britain;  but, 
that,  since  England  was  apprehensive  of 
a  war  with  France,  such  a  disposition  of  the 
French  naval  forces  was  serviceable  to 
America  in  so  far  as  it  forced  England  to 
retain  an  equal  force  in  the  British  seas.1 

In  the  spring  of  1777  the  Commissioners 
received  orders  from  Congress  to  build  six 
vessels  of  war;  but  before  this,  they  had  on 
their  own  responsibility  contracted  with 
"one  of  the  ablest  sea  officers  of  France, 
skilled  in  all  the  arts  relating  to  the  marine," 
who  had  offered  "his  services  to  our  States, 
with  the  permission  of  the  minister/'  to 
"superintend  the  building  of  two  ships  of 

1.      Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence, 


264  A'ai'y  of  tlie  American  Revolution 

war,  of  a  particular  construction,  which, 
though  not  of  half  the  cost,  shall  be  superior 
in  force  and  utility  to  ships  of  sixty-four 
guns."  This  officer  had  already  built  a 
vessel  of  this  type  for  the  King  of  France 
which  the  Commissioners  were  told  "ex 
ceeds  everything  in  swift  sailing."1  Only 
one  of  these  frigates,  which  was  named  the 
"Indian,"  was  placed  upon  the  stocks,  and 
this  one  at  Amsterdam.  To  conceal  its 
ownership  and  destination  it  was  built  in 
the  name  of  a  private  individual.  The 
Commissioners  wrote  in  the  fall  of  1777, 
when  the  ship  was  almost  finished,  that  it 
was  a  large  frigate  and  was  supposed  to 
equal  a  ship  of  the  line,  as  it  would  carry 
thirty  24-pounders  on  one  deck.  The  ship 
did  not  get  to  sea  under  Continental  colors. 
Owing  to  the  many  difficulties  of  equipping 
and  manning  so  large  a  ship  in  a  neutral 
port,  and  to  the  lack  of  money  necessary 
for  such  work,  the  Commissioners  sold  it  to 
the  King  of  France  for  a  sum  equal  to  that 
which  they  had  expended  upon  it;  the  King 
at  the  same  time  agreed  to  pension  well  the 
officer  who  had  built  it,2  With  the  sale  of 
this  frigate  the  work  of  the  Naval  Office  at 
Paris  in  naval  construction  came  to  a  close. 
The  "Indian"  was  finally  rented  to  the  state 


1.  Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence, 
II,  284-85. 

2.  Ibid.,  433,  Commissioners  to  Committee 
of  Foreign  Affairs,  November  30,   1777. 


A'a-t'v  of  the  American  Revolution   265 

of  South  Carolina.  In  1779  and  1780  the 
French  government  loaned  several  vessels 
to  the  Naval  Office. 

During  the  years  1777,  1778,  and  1779, 
the  fitting  out  of  Continental  armed  vessels, 
as  well  those  which  were  sent  to  France 
from  America,  as  those  which  were  originally 
obtained  by  the  Commissioners,  was  a  se 
vere  tax  on  the  slender  resources  of  the  Con 
tinental  treasury  at  Paris.  After  a  long 
voyage  or  cruise  a  wooden  sailing  vessel 
needed  much  repairing.  Perchance,  it  must 
be  careened  and  cleaned  or  repaired  below 
the  water  line;  new  masts  and  spars  were 
often  needed;  and  old  sails  had  to  be  mended 
and  new  ones  provided.  Always,  the  vessel 
before  beginning  a  new  cruise  must  be  fresh 
ly  provisioned;  and  its  crew,  depleted  by 
battle,  desertion,  and  the  dispensations  of 
Providence,  had  to  be  replenished.  The  en 
listing  of  a  few  recruits  was  not  a  difficult 
thing  at  this  time,  for  there  was  human  drift 
wood  in  every  port  of  Christendom,  of  divers 
nationalities,  willing  to  ship  under  any  flag. 
Many  Frenchmen  enlisted  in  French  ports 
on  board  American  vessels.  In  1782  Frank 
lin  said  he  was  continually  pestered  by  such 
Frenchmen,  who,  being  put  on  board  prizes, 
had  been  captured  by  the  English,  and  were 
now  demanding  arrears  of  pay.1  In  May, 
1779,  Franklin  was  complaining  to  Congress 

1.      Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence 
Vt  512,13. 


266  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

that  the  expense  of  fitting  out  each  Conti 
nental  cruiser  which  it  sent  to  France 
amounted  to  60,000  or  70,000  livres.  He 
said  that  Mr.  Bingham,  the  Continental 
agent  at  Martinique,  had  recently  drawn 
upon  him  for  the  expense  of  fitting  out  two 
Continental  cruisers  which  had  recently  put 
in  to  that  island,  but  for  lack  of  money  he 
would  be  obliged  to  protest  Bingham's  bill.1 
The  American  representatives  in  France 
fitted  out  and  loaded  with  supplies  for  Amer 
ica  both  Continental  vessels  and  French  and 
American  merchantmen.  This  work  prop 
erly  forms  a  part  of  their  commercial  duties. 
Deane  tells  us  that  while  he  was  in  France 
he  expended  more  than  ten  million  livres 
for  stores,  goods,  and  ships;  and  that  he 
loaded  sixteen  ships  for  America.2  The 
commercial  agents  had  much  to  do  with 
this  work;  Nantes  was  the  principal  shipping 
port. 

Before  the  treaties  of  February,  1778,  be 
tween  the  United  States  and  France,  the  dis 
posing  of  prizes  captured  by  American  ves 
sels  in  French  ports  was  exceedingly  infor 
mal.  Since  France  was  obliged  to  at  least 
make  a  pretence  of  observing  her  treaties 
with  England  and  the  laws  of  neutrality, 
she  could  not  permit  a  trial  of  American 

\.  Wharton,  Diplomatic  Correspondence, 
III,  189,  193,  Franklin  to  Committee  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  May  26,  1779. 

2.  Collections  of  New  York  Historical  So 
ciety,  Deane  Papers,  IV,  159. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  267 

prize  cases  in  her  admiralty  courts.  Conse 
quently,  prizes  captured  by  American  ves 
sels  were  disposed  of  without  trial  and  legal 
condemnation;  they  were  taken  into  the 
offing  of  French  ports  and  secretly  sold  to 
French  merchants  at  a  great  sacrifice  to  the 
captors.  After  February,  1778,  the  prizes 
were  legally  tried,  but  not  according  to  a 
uniform  practice.  Some  cases  were  tried 
by  the  French  admiralty  courts ;  but  in  other 
cases  the  French  courts  prepared  the  proces 
verbauXj  which  they  sent  to  Franklin;  he 
then  condemned  the  prizes  and  ordered  the 
court  to  sell  them.  After  July,  1780,  Frank 
lin  ceased  to  exercise  such  judicial  func 
tions.1 

One  of  the  objects  of  the  cruises  of  Conti 
nental  vessels  in  European  waters  was  to 
capture  Englishmen  and  exchange  them  for 
American  naval  prisoners  languishing  in 
prisons  in  England.  These  imprisoned 
Americans  were  confined  chiefly  at  Forton 
prison  at  Portsmouth,  and  Mill  prison  at 
Plymouth.  A  list  of  prisoners  confined  at 
Mill  prison  during  the  Revolution,  which 
contains  947  names,  has  been  made  out.2  In 
April,  1782,  there  were  eleven  hundred 

1.  Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence 
III,    801-03,  880-81;  Bigelow's  Franklin    VII 
54-55,  58-59. 

2.  Pennsylvania   Packet,   May-June,    1782. 
Another  list   will   be   found  in    New   England 
Historical  and  Genealogical  Register  for  1865 
74,  136,  209. 


268  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

Americans  in  the  jails  of  England  and  Ire 
land,  all  committed  to  prison  as  charged 
with  high  treason.1  A  few  Americans  were 
confined  at  Gibraltar.  These  prisoners  often 
suffered  greatly  from  a  lack  of  sufficient  food, 
clothing,  bedding,  and  fuel.  This  was  in 
part  caused  by  the  cruelty  and  fraud  of 
those  whom  the  British  government  en 
trusted  with  the  supply  and  control  of  its 
prisons.  The  rigors  of  their  captivity  wTere 
softened,  and  their  deprivations  in  a  meas 
ure  relieved  by  money  which  Franklin  sent 
from  Paris,  and  by  private  subscriptions  in 
their  behalf  made  by  generous  English 
men. 

To  escape  their  penury  and  distress  some 
prisoners  enlisted  in  the  enemy's  navy,  or 
joined  the  British  whaling  fleets.  Others 
escaped  from  prison;  some  of  these  burrowed 
their  way  out,  committing  treason  through 
His  Majesty's  earth,  to  use  a  phrase  of  Cap 
tain  Conyngham,  who,  with  sixty  compan 
ions,  in  this  way  escaped  from  Mill  prison 
in  November,  1779.  These  escaped  prison 
ers  gradually  found  their  way  into  Holland, 
the  seaports  of  France,  or  even  Paris;  and 
they  often  became  a  tax  upon  Franklin's 
pity,  and  the  Continental  treasury  in  his 
keeping.  Franklin  was  deeply  moved  by 
the  sufferings  of  these  men,  whether  con 
fined  in  England  or  at  liberty  in  France.  His 

1  Wharton,  Diplomatic  Correspondence, 
V,  326-27. 


Nai'v  of  the  American  Revolution  269 

efforts  in  their  behalf  are  an  important  part 
of  his  work  and  achievements  in  France. 

A  long  correspondence  directed  towards 
securing  an  exchange  of  Englishmen  cap 
tured  by  American  vessels  and  confined  in 
France  for  Americans  confined  in  England 
was  conducted  by  Franklin  with  his  friend 
Hartley  in  England.  Hartley  was  a  noble- 
minded  and  humane  Englishman,  who  was, 
at  the  time,  a  member  of  the  House  of  Com 
mons.  The  first  letters  on  the  exchanging 
of  prisoners  were  written,  however,  by  the 
American  Commissioners,  to  Lord  Stor- 
mont,  the  British  Ambassador  at  Paris. 
The  Commissioners  stated  that  Captain 
Wickes,  of  the  Continental  cruiser  "Re 
prisal,"  had  in  his  possession  one  hundred 
captured  British  seamen,  and  they  wished 
to  exchange  them  for  an  equal  number  of 
American  seamen,  prisoners  in  England. 
The  first  letter  of  the  Commissioners  Lord 
Stormont  ignored.  To  the  second  letter, 
or  possibly  to  the  third,  he  replied  in  those 
well-known  words:  "The  King's  Ambas 
sador  receives  no  applications  from  rebels, 
unless  they  come  to  implore  His  Majesty's 
mercy."  The  reply  of  the  Commissioners 
was  equally  spirited:  "In  answer  to  a  let 
ter  which  concerns  some  of  the  most  ma 
terial  interests  of  humanity,  and  of  the  two 
nations,  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
of  America,  now  at  war,  we  received  the  en 
closed  indecent  paper,  as  coming  from  your 


270  A^az'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

Lordship,  which  we  return  for  your  Lord 
ship's  more  mature  consideration."1 

Until  after  the  treaties  of  February,  1778, 
between  the  United  States  and  France, 
Great  Britain  resisted  the  exchange  of  naval 
prisoners,  confined  in  England,  on  three 
grounds :  that  it  involved  the  recognition  of 
belligerent  rights  in  the  insurgents;  that 
France  being  neutral,  the  Colonists  would  be 
compelled  either  to  free  captured  British 
seamen  taken  in  European  waters,  or  else 
to  take  them  to  America;  and  that  since 
British  seamen  were  far  more  numerous 
than  American,  an  exchange  would  tell  more 
favorably  for  the  Americans  than  for  the 
British.2  Not  until  France  had  entered  into 
the  war,  did  Britain  take  a  broader  and 
more  generous  position,  and  begin  to  listen 
to  Franklin's  overtures  for  an  exchange  of 
prisoners.  During  1778  the  negotiations 
proceeded  slowly  and  vexatiously,  and  it 
was  not  until  March,  1779,  that  the  first  ex 
change  was  made.  One  hundred  American 
prisoners  from  the  Mill  prison  at  Plymouth 
were  then  sent  to  France  by  the  British  gov 
ernment  in  the  Milford  cartel-ship;  and  in 
August  one  hundred  more  were  exchanged. 

In  October,  1779,  when  Captain  Jones  ter- 


1.  Hale's   Franklin  in   France,   I,   Chapter 
XI,  American  Prisoners,  prints  many  original 
letters. 

2.  Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence, 
II,  724. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  271 

minated  his  famous  cruise,  he  carried  into 
the  Texel, Holland,  472  prisoners;  and  Frank 
lin  had  high  hopes  that  at  last  considerable 
numbers  of  the  unfortunate  American 
prisoners  would  be  released.  Since  the 
Texel  was  a  neutral  port,  complications 
growing  out  of  the  laws  of  neutrality 
now  arose.  If  Jones's  prisoners  were 
to  be  exchanged  for  Americans,  it  was 
decided  that  they  must  first  be  brought 
to  France.  Rather  than  risk  their  recap 
ture,  Franklin  agreed  to  permit  them  to 
be  considered  as  the  prisoners  of  France 
and  to  be  exchanged  for  an  equal  number 
of  Frenchmen  imprisoned  in  England.  In 
return,  the  French  were  to  give  Franklin 
472  English  prisoners  confined  in  French 
prisons,  which  were  to  be  exchanged  for 
American  prisoners.  Franklin  had  diffi 
culty  in  securing  the  Englishmen  from 
France;  after  England  had  sent  over  one 
hundred  prisoners,  misunderstandings  arose, 
and  in  May,  1780,  she  refused  to  exchange 
Americans  except  for  Englishmen  taken  by 
American  cruisers.  One  of  the  main  ob 
jects  of  Jones's  famous  cruise,  the  releasing 
of  American  prisoners  in  England,  seems  to 
have  partly  failed.1  In  March,  1782, 
Franklin  considered  a  proposed  plan  for 
rescuing  the  American  prisoners  in  Forton 
prison,  and  bringing  them  to  France  on 

1.      Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence 
III,  535,  608,  681-82,  745-46. 


272  Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

smuggling  vessels,   but  he  concluded  that 
the  project  was  impracticable.1 

After  France  and  Spain  entered  into  the 
war,  the  American  Commissioners  confined 
British  prisoners  in  French  and  Spanish 
prisons.  Before  the  French  treaties,  the 
Commissioners  had  no  place,  except  in  their 
own  ships,  to  stow  away  their  prisoners. 
The  American  captains  were  therefore 
forced  to  free  many  captives.  They  often 
exacted  of  a  prisoner  a  pledge  or  parole  that 
he  would,  on  returning  to  England,  be  re 
sponsible  for  the  release  of  an  American  pris 
oner;  but  of  course  the  British  government 
refused  to  take  cognizance  of  such  pledges, 
or  to  listen  to  the  claims  of  the  Commission 
ers  that  these  released  captives  should  be 
considered  as  returned  prisoners.  Begin 
ning  with  1778,  the  burden  upon  the  Com 
missioners  for  the  maintenance  of  English 
prisoners  was  considerable.  In  May,  1779, 
Franklin  thought  it  would  take  more  than 
100,000  livres  to  pay  all  the  accounts  arising 
from  expenditures  in  their  behalf.2  Could 
satisfactory  and  expeditious  exchanges  have 
been  effected  with  England,  this  item  of  ex 
pense  would  have  been  greatly  reduced. 
When  the  Revolution  came  to  an  end,  there 
was  still  a  considerable  number  of  Americans 
in  English  prisons. 

1.  Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence, 
V,  27G. 

2.  Ibid.,  Ill,  189. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  273 

A  number  of  alleged  breaches  of  neutrality, 
said  to  have  been  made  by  American  armed 
vessels,  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
American  representatives  at  the  Court  of 
France.  For  example,  in  1777  the  French, 
Spanish, and  Dutch  governments  complained 
that  either  their  ships  or  their  merchandise 
had  been  unlawfully  captured.  In  1778 
the  Spanish  and  Swedish  Courts  asserted 
that  Captain  Conyngham  had  violated  the 
laws  of  neutrals.  The  Dutch  found  fault 
with  Captain  Jones  for  sending  the  brigan- 
tine  "Berkenbosch"  to  America.  In  1780 
the  Portuguese  Ambassador  at  Paris  pre 
sented  Franklin  with  papers  which  alleged 
that  the  Massachusetts  state  cruiser  "Mars" 
had  illegally  taken  a  Portuguese  ship  and 
had  sent  it  to  New  England.  The  American 
representatives  at  Paris  regularly  disposed 
of  such  cases  as  the  above  by  referring  them 
to  Congress,  and  to  the  American  courts  of 
admiralty.  In  the  case  of  the  Portuguese 
ship,  Franklin  wrote  to  Congress  that  he 
hoped  that  it  would  forward  a  speedy  de 
cision;  and  that  it  would  give  orders  to  the 
American  cruisers  not  to  meddle  with  neu 
tral  vessels,  for  this  was  a  practice  "apt  to 
produce  ill  blood."  Complaints  having 
been  made  of  violences  done  by  American 
armed  vessels  to  neutral  nations,  the  Com 
missioners,  in  November,  1777,  issued  a  proc- 
lamation  enjoining  the  American  command 
ers  to  obey  the  laws  of  neutrality.  In 


274  -Voz'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

1780,  in  view  of  the  First  Armed  Neutrality 
which  had  been  proposed  by  Catherine  of 
Russia,  and  which  was  then  being  concerted 
by  certain  European  nations,  Franklin  wrote 
to  Congress,  asking  whether  it  would  not  be 
proper  to  confine  American  captures  to  the 
principle  that  "free  ships  shall  make  free 
goods/'  since  it  was  likely  that  this  would 
become  the  law  of  nations.1 

Many  miscellaneous  duties,  more  or  less 
naval  in  character,  fell  to  the  Commission 
ers  at  Paris  and  to  their  successor,  the  Amer 
ican  Minister.  In  August,  1778,  the  Com 
missioners  offered  a  few  observations  on 
some  regulations  for  prizes  and  prisoners, 
which  Sartine,  the  French  Minister  of  Mar 
ine,  had  prepared  with  a  view  of  making  uni 
form  certain  rules  of  France  and  the  United 
States  on  these  subjects.2  In  June,  1778, 
Franklin  issued  a  curious  passport  in  the 
form  of  a  proclamation  to  all  commanders 
of  American  armed  vessels,  not  to  attack  a 
certain  British  vessel,  which  was  bound  to 
the  Moravian  mission  on  the  coast  of  Lab 
rador.  "I  do  therefore  hereby  [inform  you] 
that  the  sloop  'Good  Intent/  burthen  about 
75  tons,  Capt.  Francis  Mugford,  carrying 

1.  Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence, 
II,   425,   435,   784,  827;  IV,  24,  180;  Stevens's 
Facsimiles,     1967,     1969;    Bigelow's   Franklin, 
VII,  308;  C.  H.  Lincoln,  Calendar  of  John  Paul 
Jones  Manuscripts,  163. 

2.  Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence, 
II,  682-83,  684-87. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   275 

in  the  present  voyage  about  5000  bricks  for 
building  chimneys,  with  provisions  and 
necessaries  for  the  missionaries  and  their  as 
sistants,  and  some  ironmongery  and  tin  ware 
for  the  Indians — the  crew  consisting  of  the 
Captain,  Mate,  three  men,  and  a  boy,  and 
the  passengers  one  man  and  three  women — - 
is  the  vessel  employed  in  the  above  service 
this  year."1  Coming  amid  the  cruelties,  re 
sentments,  and  misunderstandings  of  war, 
this  document,  which  breathes  a  humane 
spirit  and  declares  that  the  philanthropic  in 
terests  of  nations  are  inviolable,  is  indeed  a 
most  welcome  one.  In  October,  1778,  the 
Commissioners  provided  the  Ambassador 
of  Naples  at  the  Court  of  France,  whose 
country  had  lately  opened  its  ports  to  Amer 
ican  vessels,  with  a  description  of  American 
flags.  After  describing  the  flag  of  the  Unit 
ed  States,  they  added:  "Some  of  the  States 
have  vessels  of  war  distinct  from  those  of 
the  United  States.  For  example,  the  ves 
sels  of  war  of  the  state  of  Massachusetts 
Bay  have  sometimes  a  pine  tree;  and  those 
of  the  state  of  South  Carolina  a  rattlesnake 
in  the  middle  of  thirteen  stripes.  Merchant 
ships  have  only  thirteen  stripes,  but  the 
flag  of  the  United  States  ordained  by  Con- 


1.  Hale's  Franklin  in  France,  I,  245. 
Franklin  issued  a  similar  proclamation  in  be 
half  of  the  celebrated  navigator,  Captain  Cook. 
— Wharton,  Diplomatic  Correspondence,  III, 
75. 


2?6  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

gress  is  the  thirteen  stripes  and  the  thirteen 
stars    above    described/'1 

The   Naval  Office   at  Paris  served  as   a, 
channel  for  the  communication  of  foreign 
naval  intelligence;  it  also  proposed  to  Con 
gress  several  important  naval  plans.     John 
Adams,  while  Commissioner,  and  later  while 
on  a  diplomatic  mission  in  Holland,  wrote 
long  letters  to  Congress  on  the  armament  of 
the  foreign  navies,  the  movements  of  the 
British,  French,  and  Spanish  fleets,  and  the 
captures  made  by  these  fleets.     In  Novem 
ber,    1776,   Silas   Deane,    always   fertile   in 
schemes,  proposed  to  the  Committee  of  Se 
cret  Correspondence  the  sending  of  frigates 
against  the   Newfoundland  fisheries;   after 
destroying  these,  the  frigates  were  to  sail 
for  the  Baltic  and  cruise  after  the  enemy's 
ships  bound  for  Russia.     In  the  same  letter 
he  proposed  a  second  project.     A  number  of 
frigates  with  merchantmen  under  their  con 
voy  should  be  loaded  with  tobacco,  rice, 
wheat,    and   other'  colonial   products,    and 
should  sail  for  Bordeaux.     After  unloading 
their  cargoes  and  refreshing  their  crews   the 
frigates  should  strike  a  blow  on  the  British 
coast  which  would  "alarm  and  weaken  Great 
Britain  most  effectually.     The  city  of  Glas 
gow  might  at  any  hour  be  destroyed  by 
a  single  frigate  capable  of  landing  two  hun 
dred  men."     After  their  descent  on  England 

~~1       Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence, 
II,  759-60. 


A'flT'v  of  the  American  Revolution   277 

the  frigates  should  sail  northward  and  in 
tercept  the  Baltic  ships,  or  else  return  to 
France  and  wait  for  a  good  opportunity  to 
strike  a  second  blow.  Ships  engaging  in 
such  expeditions  could  obtain  any  number 
of  recruits  in  France.  By  issuing  commis 
sions,  individuals  would  "join  you  in  the  ad 
venture  under  your  flag,  with  stout  frigates, 
several  of  which  are  now  building  absolutely 
with  the  design,  viz.,  the  hopes  of  getting 
into  the  service  of  the  United  States  of 
North  America/71  Deane's  letters  at  this 
time  are  somewhat  extravagant,  nor  are 
they  always  based  on  an  accurate  knowledge 
of  the  facts.  "Would  it  not  be  well/7  he 
asks,  "to  purchase  at  Leghorn  five  or  six 
stout  Frigates,  which  might  at  once  trans 
port  some  companies  of  Swiss  and  a  quan 
tity  of  stores  and  the  whole  be  defended  by 
the  Swiss  soldiers  on  their  passage?"2 

In  May,  1777,  the  recommendations  made 
by  Deane  in  November,  1776,  were  in  sub 
stance  repeated  by  the  Commissioners  at 
Paris  to  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs. 
These  new  recommendations  were  in  all 

1.  Collections  of  New  York  Historical  So 
ciety,  Deane  Papers,  I,  339-40.      The  letter  of 
Deane  here  published,  it  is  believed,  was  writ 
ten    to    the    Committee   of    Secret    Correspon 
dence,   and  not  to   the   Secret   Committee   as 
given. 

2.  Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence, 
II,    199.      Deane  to  Committee  of  Secret  Cor 
respondence,  November  28,  1776. 


278  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

probability  drafted  by  Dearie.  The  Com 
missioners  thought  that  a  blow  might  be 
struck  on  the  coast  of  England  which  would 
"alarm  and  shake  Great  Britain,  and  its 
credit,  to  the  center."  The  burning  and 
plundering  of  Liverpool  or  Glasgow  would 
do  more  essential  service  to  the  Colonies 
than  a  million  of  treasure  and  blood  spent  in 
America.  It  would  raise  our  reputation  to 
the  highest  pitch,  and  lessen  in  the  same  de 
gree  that  of  our  enemy.  The  Commission 
ers  were  confident  that  the  plan  was  prac 
ticable,  and  could  be  carried  out  with  very 
little  danger.  They  also  recommended  the 
sending  of  two  or  three  Continental  frigates 
with  some  small  cruisers  into  the  German 
ocean,  where,  about  the  middle  of  August, 
they  might  seize  the  greater  part  of  the  en 
emy's  Baltic  and  northern  trade.  One 
frigate,  they  said,  would  be  sufficient  to  de 
stroy  the  "Greenland  whale  fishery,  or  take 
the  Hudson  Bay  ships  returning."1 

In  the  fall  of  1778  the  Commissioners  called 
the  attention  of  both  the  Committee  of  For 
eign  Affairs  and  the  French  Minister  of  Ma 
rine  to  the  ease  with  which  a  single  frigate  or 
privateer  of  twenty  or  twenty-four  guns 
could  capture  the  valuable  whale  fishery 
which  the  English  maintained  off  the  coast 
of  Brazil.  The  seventeen  vessels  employed 
in  this  industry  were  manned  and  officered 

1  Wharton,  Diplomatic  Correspondence, 
II,  324-27. 


A'rti'v  of  the  American  Revolution   279 

almost  entirely  by  Americans  belonging  to 
Nantucket  and  Cape  Cod.  These  men  had 
been  captured  by  Great  Britain,  and  having 
been  given  their  choice  of  entering  the  Brit 
ish  naval  service  or  the  whale  fishing  indus 
try,  had  chosen  the  latter.  By  their  re 
capture  four  hundred  and  fifty  of  the  best 
kind  of  American  seamen  would  be  added  to 
the  Continental  service,  and  moreover  the 
cargoes  of  oil  which  would  be  taken  were 
very  valuable.1 

In  December,  1777,  the  Committee  of 
Foreign  Affairs  proposed  to  the  Commis 
sioners  at  Paris  the  most  extensive  naval 
expedition  planned  for  the  Continental  fleet 
during  the  Revolution.  The  plan  was  to 
be  carried  out  by  two  or  three  of  the  frigates 
which  the  Marine  Committee  were  sending  to 
France.  These,  being  well  manned,  were 
early  in  February,  1778,  to  be  despatched  to 
the  French  island  of  Mauritius  in  the  In 
dian  ocean,  where  they  should  refit  and  re 
plenish  their  stores.  The  frigates  should 
next  proceed  to  the  Coromandel  Coast,  a 
twenty  days'  sail  from  Mauritius.  Here 
they  should  intercept  the  enemy's  China 
ships,  and  also  distress  the  internal  trade  of 
India.  The  prizes  could  be  sold  in  Mauritius 
and  the  proceeds  sent  to  Paris  by  bills  of  ex 
change.  Goree  was  recommended  as  a  bet 
ter  port  of  call  than  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 

1.      Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence, 
II,  818-19,  832-33. 


280  Nai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

where  there  was  danger  to  be  apprehended 
from  British  vessels.  In  the  same  letter 
the  Committee  wrote  that  "another  bene 
ficial  attempt  may  be  conducted  along  the 
coasts  of  Africa.  The  French  and  Dutch 
settlements,  and  perhaps  the  Portuguese, 
will  purchase  the  prizes,  and  give  bills  on 
Europe."1  No  reply  was  made  by  the  Com 
missioners  relative  to  the  proposed  East  In 
dian  expedition  until  in  July,  1778,  when 
Arthur  Lee  wrote  to  the  Committee  of  For 
eign  Affairs  that  the  Commissioners  con 
sidered  the  plan  "impracticable  at  the  pres 
ent."  "Better  order/'  he  said,  "must  be 
established  in  our  marine,  and  the  ships' 
companies  better  sorted,  before  it  will  be 
safe  to  attempt  enterprises  at  such  a  dis 
tance,  and  which  require  a  certain  extent  of 
ideas  in  the  captain  and  entire  obedience  in 
the  crew."2  One  must  agree  with  Lee's  con 
clusion,  although  more  weighty  objections 
to  the  complicated  plan  of  che  Committee 
might  be  adduced. 

1.  Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence, 
II,  440-41. 

2.  Ibid.,  673-74. 


CHAPTER  X 

NAVAL    DUTIES    OF     AMERICAN     REPRE 
SENTATIVES  IN  FOREIGN  COUNTRIES 

(Continued) 

In  1777  the  work  of  the  Naval  Office  at 
Paris  was  greater  and  more  varied  than 
during  any  other  year.  Naval  vessels  were 
both  built  and  purchased.  Continental 
ships,  and  merchantmen  chartered  from  the 
French,  were  laden  for  America  with  mus 
kets,  cannon,  powder,  cordage,  duck,  tents, 
blankets,  and  clothing.  The  naval  prison 
ers  in  England  and  the  violations  of  neutral 
rights  committed  by  Continental  ships  and 
by  privateers  demanded  much  attention. 
In  the  spring  the  Continental  brig  "Lexing 
ton,"  and  in  the  fall  the  "Raleigh,"  "Al 
fred,"  and  "Independence,"  arrived  in 
France.  The  "Reprisal,"  16,  "Lexington," 
14,  "Dolphin,"  10,  "Surprise,"  10,  and  "Re 
venge,"  14,  were  fitted  and  refitted  in  French 
ports  and  sent  cruising  off  the  British  coasts ; 
and  the  prizes  of  these  vessels  were  sold  in 
France.  The  "Dolphin,"  "Surprise,"  and 
''Revenge"  were  officered  and  manned  in 


282  A'ai'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

France.  The  task  of  conducting  all  these 
naval  activities  in  a  neutral  country  the 
Commissioners  found  to  be  a  most  delicate 
one. 

Among  the  earlier  undertakings  of  the 
American  representatives  at  Paris  were 
their  attempts  to  obtain  the  freedom  of 
French  ports  for  American  vessels.  Nor 
was  their  work  of  this  sort  confined  wholly 
to  the  French  Court,  for  in  the  spring  of 
1777  Arthur  Lee  sought  at  Madrid  permis 
sion  for  American  vessels  to  sell  their  prizes 
and  to  refit  in  Spanish  ports;  and  later  in 
the  year  he  went  on  a  similar  errand  to  Ber 
lin.  Both  the  Spanish  and  Prussian  Courts 
refused  his  requests.1  Prizes  were,  how 
ever,  without  difficulty  secretly  disposed  of 
in  Spain. 

As  early  as  August,  1776,  Deane  wrote 
from  Paris  that  he  was  "not  without  hopes 
of  obtaining  liberty  for  the  armed  vessels  of 
the  United  Colonies,  to  dispose  of  their 
prizes  in  the  ports  of  this  Kingdom,  and  also 
for  arming  and  fitting  out  vessels  of  war  di 
rectly  from  hence."2  When  Franklin  ar 
rived  in  France,  early  in  December,  1776, 
he  carried  instructions  for  the  Commission 
ers  to  apply  immediately  to  the  Court  of 
France  for  the  protection  of  its  ports  to 


1.  Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence, 
II,  296-97,  355-58,  370. 

2.  Ibid.,    119-20,   Deane    to    Committee   of 
Secret  Correspondence,  August  18,  1776. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  283 

American  ships  of  war,  privateers,  and 
prizes.  If  this  favor  were  granted,  he  was 
to  ask  for  permission  to  sell  American  prizes 
and  their  cargoes  in  French  ports.  In  case 
both  requests  met  with  favorable  responses, 
the  Committee  of  Secret  Correspondence 
would  obtain  the  consent  of  Congress  to  em 
power  the  Commissioners  to  appoint  a  judge 
of  admiralty  in  France;  this  judge  would  try 
all  American  prize  cases,  arising  in  the  ports 
of  France,  in  accordance  with  the  rules  and 
regulations  of  Congress.  Pending  the  ob 
taining  of  the  consent  of  Congress,  the  Com 
missioners  were  authorized  to  consult  with 
the  French  Ministry  whether  it  would  per 
mit  the  erection  of  American  admiralty 
courts  in  France  and  the  French  West  In 
dies.1  Of  course  France  could  not  grant 
such  requests  as  these  if  she  wished  to  re 
main  at  peace  with  England.  During  1776 
the  Americans  generally  overestimated  the 
friendliness  of  France.  They  either  failed 
to  see  that  the  laws  of  neutrality  must  set 
quite  definite  limits  to  her  overt  favors,  or 
else  they  thought  her  eager  for  an  excuse  to 
go  to  war  with  Great  Britain.  The  attitude 
of  France  towards  permitting  American  ves 
sels  of  war  and  their  prizes  the  freedom  of 
French  ports  was  disclosed  sooner  than  the 
Commissioners  had  reason  to  expect. 

It  is  remembered  that  the   ''Reprisal"  ar- 

1.      Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence. 
II,  178-79. 


284  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

rived  in  France  with  Franklin  on  board 
early  in  December,  1776.  She  was  the  first 
Continental  vessel  to  reach  European  wa 
ters.  Not  far  from  the  French  coast  she 
captured  two  small  British  brigantines,  and 
carried  them  into  Nantes.  These  were  the 
first  American  prizes  to  enter  French  ports. 
It  may  be  guessed  that  the  captains  of  the 
two  prizes  were  not  long  in  communicating 
with  Lord  Stormont,  the  British  Ambassa 
dor  at  Paris;  and  that  Lord  Stormont  was 
not  long  in  communicating  with  the  French 
government.  On  December  17  he  held  a 
conference  with  Vergennes,  the  French  Min 
ister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  to  whom  he  de 
clared  that  the  prizes  were  unlawfully  cap 
tured,  since  the  "Reprisal"  had  no  commis 
sion  from  a  sovereign  power  as  a  letter  of 
marque;  that  he  expected  that  the  prizes 
would  be  immediately  restored  to  their  own 
ers;  and  that  the  permitting  of  their  sale 
would  be  a  violation  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht 
between  Great  Britain  and  France.  Though 
conciliatory,  Vergennes's  reply  was  not  al 
together  satisfactory  to  the  British  Ambas 
sador,  who  records  that  the  French  Minister 
ended  "with  expressions  which  seemed  to 
shew  an  Intention  of  taking  some  Middle 
Way,  and  leaving  the  Point  undetermined."1 
During  1777  Lord  Stormont  held  many 


1.  Stevens's  Facsimiles,  1392,  1-2,  Lord 
Stormont  to  Lord  Weymouth,  December  18, 
1776. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  285 

similar  conferences  with  Vergennes  in  which 
the  naval  liberties  permitted  the  Americans 
in  French  ports  were  the  subject  of  discus 
sion.  Vergennes  set  forth  the  position  of 
his  government  in  a  way  that  was  reason 
ably  acceptable  to  England.  He  declared 
that  its  purpose  was  to  prevent  every  vio 
lation  of  its  treaties  and  of  the  law  of  na 
tions.  He  gave  orders  that  the  prizes  cap 
tured  by  the  Americans  should  not  be  sold 
in  French  ports.  At  different  times  he 
commanded  the  American  vessels  of  war  to 
sail  within  twenty-four  hours  from  French 
harbors.  When  the  British  wrath  flamed 
out  at  some  overt  act  of  the  Americans,  Ver 
gennes  appeased  it  by  vigorous  and  decisive 
acts  of  repression,  aimed  at  the  American 
captains  and  agents.  A  past  master  in 
soft  and  plausible  answers,  he  excused  fla 
grant  violations  of  British  rights  by  explain 
ing  that  every  government  had  some  tem 
pestuous  spirits  which  were  hard  to  control, 
and  that  the  "avidity  of  gain77  in  merchants 
could  not  always  be  restrained. 

The  British  government  could  not  object 
to  the  public  acts  of  the  French  government, 
or  to  the  reception  which  it  gave  to  the 
American  Commissioners,  whom  it  received 
"privately  with  all  civility/7  but  avoided  an 
open  reception,  as  it  was  "cautious  of  giving 
umbrage  to  England."  As  regards  its  ob 
servance  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  and  its  in 
ability  to  grant  the  freedom  of  its  ports  to 


286  Naz'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

American  vessels  and  their  prizes,  its  dec 
larations  to  the  Commissioners  were  in  line 
with  those  which  it  made  to  Lord  Stormont. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Commissioners  were 
given  to  understand,  through  secret  and  in 
formal  channels,  that  the  Colonies  had  the 
sympathy  of  the  French  government;  that 
so  far  as  was  consistent  with  French  treaties, 
they  might  expect  favors  and  indulgences; 
that  the  ports  of  France  were  open  to  Amer 
ican  ships  "as  friends;"  that  ways  of  dispos 
ing  of  American  prizes  which  would  not  be 
offensive  to  England  might  be  found;  and 
that  other  irregularities  would  be  permitted 
unnoticed.1  The  Commissioners  pressed  their 
favors  as  far  as  they  could  safely  go ;  indeed, 
so  far,  that  at  one  time  they  endangered  the 
continuance  of  their  friendly  relations  with 
the  French  Court. 

The  two  prizes  which  the  "Reprisal"  car 
ried  into  Nantes  in  December,  1776,  were  ta 
ken  into  the  offing  of  that  port  and  privately 
sold.  The  "Reprisal"  was  quietly  refitted, 
and  in  February,  1777,  she  made  a  cruise 
off  the  coast  of  Spain  and  returned  to  L'Or- 
ient  with  the  Falmouth  packet  and  four 
other  English  vessels.  Lord  Stormont  made 
vigorous  remonstrances.  The  French  gov 
ernment  at  once  ordered  the  "Reprisal"  and 
her  prizes  to  put  to  sea  within  twenty-four 
hours.  Nothing  of  this  sort  was  done.  The 

1.  Wharton,  Diplomatic  Correspondence, 
II,  283-84,  364,  379. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  287 

*  'Reprisal"  remained  in  port,  on  the  ground 
that  she  had  sprung  a  leak;  and  her  prizes 
were  secretly  sold  for  one-seventh  of  their 
value  to  French  merchants,  who,  for  the 
sake  of  large  profits,  eagerly  overlooked  the 
irregularity  of  the  transaction.1  Confident 
of  the  accuracy  of  the  cues  they  were  re 
ceiving,  the  Commissioners  now  fitted  out, 
manned,  and  officered  at  Dunkirk  the  "Sur 
prise,"  Captain  Gustavus  Conyngham,  and 
early  in  May,  1777,  sent  her  cruising.  With 
in  a  few  days  after  his  leaving  Dunkirk, 
Conyngham  returned  with  the  Harwich 
packet,  and  one  other  prize.  The  storm 
raised  by  the  British  at  so  open  and  un 
doubted  a  violation  of  their  rights  could  be 
pacified  only  by  more  rigorous  measures. 
The  French  government  therefore  impris 
oned  Captain  Conyngham  and  his  crew, 
and  returned  his  prizes  to  their  owners.2 

Not  at  all  disconcerted,  the  Commission 
ers  fitted  out  a  fleet,  consisting  of  the  "Re 
prisal,"  "Lexington,"  and  "Dolphin,"  to  in 
tercept  the  Irish  linen  ships.  Captain 
Wickes  was  placed  at  its  head  as  commo 
dore,  and  was  instructed  not  to  return  to 
France  unless  he  found  it  absolutely  neces 
sary.  Wickes  got  to  sea  during  the  first 


1.  Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence, 
II,   379-80;   Stevens's  Facsimiles,    1445,    1536 
1568. 

2.  Stevens's   Facsimiles,    1529,    Lord   Stor- 
mont  to  Lord  Weymouth,  May  8,  1777. 


288  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

of  June.  Missing  the  linen  ships,  he  sailed 
quite  around  Ireland,  and  captured  or  de 
stroyed  seventeen  or  eighteen  sail  of  vessels ; 
he  "most  effectually  alarmed  England,  pre 
vented  the  great  fair  at  Chester,  occasioned 
insurance  to  rise,  and  even  deterred  the  Eng 
lish  merchants  from  shipping  goods  in  Eng 
lish  bottoms  at  any  rate,  so  that  in  a  few 
weeks  forty  sail  of  French  ships  were  load 
ing  in  the  Thames,  on  freight,  an  instance 
never  before  known."1  The  three  vessels 
returned  to  French  ports  about  July  1. 

Obviously  there  was  a  limit  to  the  for 
bearance  of  the  English  government,  and 
it  made  it  plain  that  this  limit  had  been 
reached.  Lord  Stormont  was  instructed  to 
tell  the  French  government  that,  however 
desirous  the  British  king  might  be  to  main 
tain  peace,  he  would  not  submit  "to  such 
strong  and  public  instances  of  support  and 
protection  shewn  to  the  Rebels  by  a  Nation 
that  at  the  same  time  professes  in  the  strong 
est  terms  its  Desire  to  maintain  the  present 
Harmony  subsisting  between  the  two 
Crowns.  The  shelter  given  to  the  armed 
Vessels  of  the  Rebels,  the  facility  they  have 
of  disposing  of  their  Prizes  by  the  conni 
vance  of  Government,  and  the  conveniences 
allowed  them  to  refit,  are  such  irrefragable 
proofs  of  support,  that  scarcely  more  could 

1.  Stevens's  Facsimiles,  703,  1539;  Whar- 
ton,  Diplomatic  Correspondence,  II,  379-80, 
Deane  co  Robert  Morris,  August  23,  1777. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  289 

be  done  if  there  was  an  avowed  Alliance  be 
tween  France  .and  them,  and  We  were  in  a 
state  of  War  with  that  Kingdom."1 

This  last  cruise  of  Wickes  also  threatened 
to  endanger  the  friendliness  of  the  French 
Court  and  the  Commissioners.  Vergennes 
wrote  to  them  with  some  spirit,  and  insinu 
ated  that  they  had  broken  their  promises. 
" After  such  repeated  advertisements/'  he 
said,  "the  motives  of  which  you  have  been 
informed  of,  we  had  no  reason  to  expect, 
gentlemen,  that  the  said  Sieur  Wickes  would 
prosecute  his  cruising  in  the  European  seas, 
and  we  could  not  be  otherwise  than  greatly 
surprised  that,  after  having  associated  the 
privateers  the  Lexington  and  the  Dolphin 
to  infest  the  English  coast,  they  should  all 
three  of  them  come  for  refuge  into  our  ports. 
You  are  too  well  informed,  gentlemen,  and 
too  penetrating,  not  to  see  how  this  conduct 
affects  the  dignity  of  the  king,  my  master, 
at  the  same  time  it  offends  the  neutrality 
which  his  majesty  professes/' 

In  their  reply  the  Commissioners  exhib 
ited  some  knowledge  of  the  pleasing 
phrases  of  diplomacy.  They  said  that 
they  were  "very  sensible  of  the  protection 
afforded  to  us  and  to  our  commerce 
since  our  residence  in  this  kingdom, 
agreeable  to  the  goodness  of  the  king's 
gracious  intentions  and  to  the  law  of  na- 

1  Stevens's  Facsimiles,  1562,  Lord  Wey- 
mouth  to  Lord  Stormont,  July  4,  1777. 


290  A'ai'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

tions,  and  it  gives  us  real  and  great  concern 
when  any  vessels  of  war  appertaining  to 
America,  either  through  ignorance  or  in 
attention,  do  anything  that  may  offend  his 
majesty  in  the  smallest  degree."  They 
tried  to  shift  the  blame  of  their  captains'  re 
turn  to  French  ports  to  the  British  men  of 
war  that  had  chased  the  American  vessels 
into  safe  retreats.  "We  had/'  they  con 
tinued,  "some  days  before  we  were  honored 
by  your  excellency's  letter,  dispatched  by  an 
express  the  most  positive  orders  to  them  to 
depart  directly  to  America,  which  they  are 
accordingly  preparing  to  do."  There  can 
be  no  doubt  about  the  honesty  of  these  or 
ders,  for  it  was  plain  to  the  Commissioners 
that  the  French  government  was  not  dis 
posed  to  forgive  further  infringements  of 
neutral  rights.  By  express  orders  of  the 
French  king  the  fleet  of  Wickes  was  seques 
tered  until  it  gave  security  that  it  should 
return  directly  to  America.1 

Meantime  the  Commissioners  had  ob 
tained  the  release  of  Conyngham  and  his 
crew.  He  was  now  placed  in  command  of 
the  "Revenge;"  and  in  July,  eluding  the 
British,  he  sailed  from  Dunkirk,  ostensibly 
for  America.  He  first  cruised  along  the 
eastern  coast  of  England,  into  the  North 

IT  Stevens 's  Facsimilies,  1677;  Wharton, 
Diplomatic  Correspondence,  II,  364-66,  Ver- 
gennes  to  Commissioners  at  Paris,  July  16, 
1777,  and  Franklin  and  Deane  to  Vergennes, 
July  17,  1777. 


Naz'y  of  the  American  Revolution  291 

Sea  and  the  region  of  the  Baltic,  then  back 
through  the  straits  of  Dover  and  into  the 
Irish  Channel,  and  finally  into  the  Bay  of 
Biscay,  anchoring  at  Ferrol,  Spain,  about 
the  first  of  October.  The  terror  of  his 
name,  which  his  recklessness  and  daring 
greatly  increased,  spread  great  alarm  among 
the  inhabitants  of  the  British  Isles.  He 
did  not  return  again  to  France  with  the 
"Revenge/'  This  fact  made  his  cruise  less 
annoying  to  the  Commissioners,  than  the 
last  cruise  of  Wickes.  Hodge,  the  agent  of 
the  Commissioners,  who  had  given  bond  to 
the  French  admiralty  that  the  "Revenge" 
would  not  engage  in  operations  against  the 
British,  was  arrested  and  thrown  into  the 
Bastile;  and  Vergennes  wrote  a  most  severe 
letter,  to  be  shown  to  the  Commissioners. 
Presently,  when  the  wrath  of  the  British 
had  abated,  Hodge  was  released  on  the  rep 
resentation  of  the  Commissioners  that  he 
was  a  person  of  character,  and  that  they 
could  not  "conceive  him  capable  of  any  will 
ful  offence  against  the  laws  of  this  nation."1 
About  the  middle  of  September  the  "Re 
prisal"  and  the  "Lexington"  sailed  for  Amer 
ica;  the  "Reprisal"  foundered  on  the  Grand 


1.  C.  H.  Jones,  Captain  Gustavus  Conyng- 
ham,  15-17;  Outlook  for  January  3,  1903, 
71-83,  James  Barnes,  Tragedy  of  the  Lost 
Commission;  Hale's  Franklin  in  France,  I,  139; 
Wharton,  Diplomatic  Correspondence,  II  375 
377,  406. 


292  Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

Banks  of  Newfoundland,  losing  all  on  board 
except  the  cook;  and  the  "Lexington"  was 
taken  by  the  British  off  Ushant.  With  the 
departure  of  these  vessels  the  movements  of 
the  Continental  fleet  for  1777  in  European 
waters  came  to  an  end;  as  did  also  the  nice 
task  of  the  Commissioners  of  conducting  a 
naval  war  from  a  neutral  country  as  a  base, 
without  losing  the  friendship  of  that  coun 
try,  or  involving  it  in  war.  Had  not  hos 
tilities  broken  out  in  1778  between  France 
and  England  by  reason  of  other  causes,  a 
repetition  of  the  naval  operations  of  1777,  if 
permitted  by  the  French,  would  very 
likely  have  brought  them  on. 

During  1778  two  cruises  were  made  in  Eur 
opean  waters,  one  by  Captain  Tucker,  and 
the  other  by  Captain  Jones.  On  April  1, 
1778,  the  frigate  "Boston/'  Captain  Samuel 
Tucker,  arrived  at  Bordeaux  with  John 
Adams,  the  new  Commissioner  who  was  to 
succeed  Silas  Dcane,  as  a  passenger.  After 
refitting,  Tucker  made  a  short  cruise  in 
which  he  captured  four  prizes.  In  August 
the  "Boston,"  in  company  writh  the  frigate 
"Providence,"  and  the  ship  "Ranger," 
sailed  for  America.  Some  months  previous 
the  "Ranger,"  when  under  the  command 
of  Captain  Jones,  had  made  an  important 
cruise.  Jones  arrived  in  this  vessel  in 
France  on  December  2,  1777.  He  expected 
to  receive  command  of  a  frigate  or  a  ship 
of  the  line;  but  in  this  he  was  disappointed. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  293 

On  January  18,  1778,  the  Commissioners 
wrote  to  him  that  they  could  not  procure 
such  a  ship  as  he  expected;  and  that  they  ad 
vised  him,  "after  equipping  the  'Ranger/ 
in  the  best  manner  for  the  cruise  you  pro 
pose/'  to  proceed  "with  her  in  the  manner 
you  shall  judge  best  for  distressing  the  en 
emies  of  the  United  States,  by  sea  or  other 
wise,  consistent  with  the  laws  of  war  and  the 
terms  of  your  commission/'1 

From  these  orders  it  may  be  seen  that 
Jones  had  in  mind  a  descent  on  the  British 
coast.  On  April  10,  1778,  he  sailed  for  the 
Irish  sea.  After  capturing  or  destroying 
four  vessels,  he  made  an  unsuccessful  at 
tempt  to  burn  the  shipping  at  Whitehaven  in 
Cumberland.  He  next  tried  to  take  pris 
oner  the  Earl  of  Selkirk  from  his  summer 
home  at  St.  Mary's  Isle,  off  the  southwest 
coast  of  Scotland,  but  failed  to  find  him. 
These  movements  ashore  naturally  struck 
terror  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  British  Isles. 
Jones  now  crossed  to  Ireland,  and  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Belfast  attacked  the  Brit 
ish  naval  ship  "Drake,"  20,  Commander 
George  Burdon.  After  an  engagement  of 
seventy-four  minutes,  during  which  the 
"Ranger"  was  "skillfully  handled  and  well- 
fought,"  the  "Drake"  struck  her  colors. 
Jones  arrived  in  Brest  with  his  prize  on  May 


1.      Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence 
II,  471-72. 


294  Araz'j'  of  the  American  Revolution 

10. x  Many  plans  and  suggestions  were  now 
made  by  both  the  Commissioners  and  the 
French  government  to  supply  Jones  with 
some  large  ship  from  the  French  navy,  or  to 
give  him  the  command  of  a  small  fleet,  but 
they  all  miscarried.  The  ambitious  and 
energetic  American  captain,  chafing  under 
his  enforced  idleness,  was  not  to  make  an 
other  cruise  until  fifteen  months  had  elapsed. 
During  1779  and  1780  the  Naval  office  at 
Paris  was  chiefly  concerned  with  the  move 
ments,  conduct,  and  achievements  of  two 
captains  in  the  Continental  navy,  John  Paul 
Jones  and  Peter  Landais.  Never  have  the 
fortunes  of  war  thrown  into  close  association 
two  men  of  more  striking  contrasts.  Jones 
was  ardent,  hopeful,  and  magnetic;  Landais 
sullen,  quarrelsome,  and  repellent.  Jones 
was  a  master  of  men;  from  unpromising  ma 
terials,  swept  together  by  the  winds  and 
waves  of  diverse  fortunes,  he  made  most 
effective  crews.  Landais  was  seldom  on 
good  terms  with  his  officers  or  seamen,  some 
of  whom  were  always  dissatisfied  and  muti 
nous.  Called  to  play  their  parts  on  the 
same  theater  of  war,  the  Scotchman  achieved 
signal  success  and  distinction,  and  won  the 
plaudits  of  the  French  king,  of  Congress, 
and  of  his  countrymen ;  while  to  the  French 
man  fell  the  ill-will  of  his  own  government, 


1.  Sherburne's  John  Paul  Jones,  43-53, 
Jones  to  Commissioners,  May  27,  1778; 
Clowes,  Royal  Navy,  IV,  11-13. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  295 

the  hatred  of  Americans,  and,  in  his  dismis 
sal  from  the  navy  of  the  United  States,  dis 
honor  and  professional  disgrace. 

In  the  spring  of  1779  Franklin — now 
American  minister  at  the  Court  of  France— 
the  French  government,  and  Lafayette 
planned  an  expedition  against  the  coast  of 
England,  which  had  in  view  especially  the 
striking  of  some  of  the  larger  English  towns. 
Lafayette  was  to  command  the  French 
troops  which  were  to  be  lent  for  the  expedi 
tion,  and  Jones,  to  whom  the  French  govern 
ment  had,  in  February,  given  the  command 
of  the  "Bon  Homme  Richard,"  formerly  the 
"Duras,"  an  old  East  Indiaman,  was  to 
command  the  sea  forces.  The  "Alliance," 
Captain  Landais,  which  vessel  had  recently 
arrived  in  France  from  America,  was  to  be 
a  part  of  Jones's  fleet.  This  plan  miscar 
ried. 

It  was  not  until  August  13  that  Jones 
finally  got  to  sea  with  a  fleet  consisting  of 
five  naval  vessels  and  two  privateers.  The 
two  chief  vessels  of  the  little  fleet  were  the 
"Bon  Homme  Richard/'  42,  Captain  Jones, 
and  the  "Alliance,"  36,  Captain  Landais. 
These  two  officers  had  of  course  permanent 
commissions  in  the  Continental  navy;  the 
three  French  officers  in  command  of  naval 
vessels  were  given  temporary  commissions 
in  the  Continental  navy.  The  expense 
of  the  cruise  was  borne  by  the  French 
government;  and  the  fitting  out  of  the 


296  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

fleet  was  superintended  by  Chaumont, 
the  joint  agent  of  the  French  gov 
ernment  and  the  American  minister.1 
The  destination  of  the  fleet  was  determined 
by  the  French  government;  and  the  orders 
cf  Jones,  the  commodore  of  the  fleet,  were 
prepared  by  the  French  Minister  of  Marine, 
translated  and  signed  by  Franklin,  and  sent 
to  Jones  by  Chaumont.  The  fleet  sailed 
under  the  American  flag.  Its  principal  ob 
ject  was  the  intercepting  of  the  Baltic 
fleet  of  the  enemy. 

The  details  of  this  memorable  cruise  are 
familiar  to  the  reader,  and  need  not  be  re 
peated  here.  The  fleet  was  scarcely  at  sea 
before  Landais  became  insubordinate,  as 
serted  his  independence  of  Jones,  and  left 
and  rejoined  his  commodore  when  and 
where  he  chose.  Sailing  first  along  the 
west  coast  of  Ireland  and  then  around  Scot 
land,  Jones  reached  the  east  coast  of  York 
shire,  on  September  23.  He  had  by  this 
time  taken  seventeen  ships,  and  had  made 
an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  reach  Leith  and 
Edinburgh,  and  lay  them  under  contribu 
tion.  Off  Flamborough  Head  Jones's  fleet, 
which  was  now  reduced  to  the  "Bon  Homme 
Richard/'  "Alliance,"  and  "Pallas,"  fell  in 
with  the  Baltic  trade  of  forty-one  sail  and 
convoyed  by  His  Majesty's  ships,  "Serapis," 
44,  Captain  Richard  Pearson,  and  "Countess 

1.  Wharton,  Diplomatic  Correspondence, 
III,  242. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   297 

of  Scarborough/'  20,  Commander  Thomas 
Piercy.  There  now  ensued  an  engagement 
between  the  "Bon  Homme  Richard"  and 
the  "Serapis,"  which  lasted  more  than  three 
hours.  It  was  one  of  the  fiercest  fights  re 
corded  in  the  annals  of  naval  warfare.  For 
the  greater  part  of  the  engagement  the  two 
vessels  were  lashed  together,  stem  to  stern, 
starboard  to  starboard,  and  with  the  muz 
zles  of  their  guns  touching.  Both  ships  were 
set  on  fire  in  various  places,  and  the  "scene 
wras  dreadful  beyond  the  reach  of  language/' 
to  use  Jones's  phrasing.  The  "Bon  Homme 
Richard"  won  the  fight  only  through  the 
brilliant  daring,  the  remarkable  naval  skill, 
and  the  intelligence  in  action  of  her  com 
mander.  She  was  so  badly  injured  that 
she  sank  the  second  day  after  the  fight; 
her  own  crew  were  transferred  to  the  "Ser 
apis."  The  loss  to  the  "Bon  Homme  Rich 
ard"  was  116  men;  to  the  "Serapis,"  129. 
During  the  fight  of  the  "Bon  Homme  Rich 
ard"  and  the  "Serapis,"  the  "Pallas,"  Cap 
tain  Cottineau,  and  the  "Countess  of  Scar 
borough/'  Commander  Piercy,  engaged  each 
other,  with  the  result  that  the  British  ship 
was  compelled  to  surrender.  The  "Alli 
ance"  took  little  or  no  part  in  the  contest, 
as  her  commander  was  sulking  throughout 
the  engagement.  The  two  prizes,  the  "Al 
liance,"  and  the  "Pallas"  arrived  at  the 
Texel  in  Holland  on  October  3,  1779.1 

1.      Sherburne's  John  Paul  Jones,    111-125, 


298  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

A  naval  discord  now  arose,  which  tried  the 
patience  and  temper  of  Franklin.  No  soon 
er  did  Jones  and  Landais  reach  the  Texel, 
than  each  wrote  to  Franklin  making  charges 
against  the  other.  Jones  accused  Landais 
of  gross  insubordination  and  misbehavior 
and  specifically  charged  him  with  inten 
tionally  firing  into  the  "Bon  Homme  Rich 
ard"  and  killing  a  "number  of  our  men  and 
mortally  wounding  a  good  officer."  The 
French  government,  which  was  inclined  to 
attribute  the  loss  of  the  "Bon  Homme  Rich 
ard"  and  so  many  of  her  crew  to  the  conduct 
of  Landais,  took  a  hand  in  the  dispute,  and 
asked  Franklin  to  call  Landais  to  account  at 
Paris.  In  cases  of  this  sort  the  Naval  Office 
had  little  authority  or  means  to  effect  disci 
pline  in  the  navy.  A  sufficient  number  of 
commissioned  officers  could  not  be  assem 
bled  in  France  to  hold  a  court-martial;  and 
if  they  could,  it  was  doubtful  whether  the 
Naval  Office  had  the  power  to  order  such  a 
court.  Their  inability  to  hold  courts-mar 
tial  had  been  regretted  more  than  once  by 
the  American  Commissioners.  Landais 
came  to  Paris,  and  Franklin  investigated  the 
case  before  friends  of  the  two  disputants; 
but  satisfactory  evidence  and  witnesses 
could  not  be  obtained  to  prove  or  disprove 
the  charges,  so  Franklin  did  the  only  thing 


Jones  to  Fsanklin,  October  3,  1779,  giving  an 
account  of  cruise;  Clowes,  Royal  Navy,  IV, 
33-39. 


Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution   299 

possible,  by  referring  the  dispute  to  Con 
gress,  and  a  properly  constituted  court-mar 
tial  in  America.  Franklin  thought  his  in 
quiry  had  one  good  effect,  the  preventing  of 
a  duel  in  Holland  between  the  two  officers.1 
On  the  coming  of  Landais  to  Paris,  Frank 
lin  placed  Jones  in  command  of  the  " Alli 
ance."  After  cruising  through  the  English 
Channel  to  Spain,  Jones,  in  February,  1780, 
brought  his  vessel  into  L' Orient.  Act 
ing  under  Franklin's  orders,  Jones  now  re 
fitted  his  vessel  with  the  purpose  of  return 
ing  to  America  with  a  cargo  of  supplies.  In 
the  spring  of  1780  Landais  began  to  beseech 
Franklin  to  restore  him  to  the  command  of 
the  "Alliance,"  and  he  soon  raised  the  ques 
tion  whether  the  American  minister  at 
Paris  had  the  power  to  remove  him  from  the 
command  of  a  vessel  to  which  Congress  had 
appointed  him.  His  request  was  refused 
by  Franklin  in  bald  and  vigorous  terms. 
"I  think  you,"  Franklin  wrote,  "so  impru 
dent,  so  litigious,  and  quarrelsome  a  man, 
even  with  your  best  friends,  that  peace  and 
good  order,  and  consequently  the  quiet  and 
regular  subordination  so  necessary  to  suc 
cess,  are,  where  you  preside,  impossible."2 


1.  Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence, 
III,    375-77,    378-79,    535,  547-49,  562-63;  IV, 
293;  Bigelow's  Franklin,  VII,   108-09. 

2.  Hale,    Franklin     in     France,    I,   327-28; 
Chapter  XVII,  Captain  Landais,  prints  ma>ny 
original  letters  connected  with  the  dispute. 


300  A'fli'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

Later  -he  charged  Landais  "not  to  meddle 
with  the  'Alliance'  or  create  any  disturb 
ance  on  board  her,  as  you  will  answer  the 
contrary  at  your  peril/'1  About  the  first 
of  June  Jones  left  his  vessel,  and  came  up  to 
Paris  to  hasten  the  sale  of  his  prizes.  Lan 
dais  now  appeared  at  L' Orient,  raised  a  mu 
tiny  on  board  the  "Alliance,"  and,  acting 
on  Arthur  Lee's  advice,  took  charge  of  her. 
Early  in  July,  without  taking  the  stores 
which  had  been  assigned  to  his  ship,  Lan 
dais  sailed  for  America.  It  was  on  this 
passage  that  he  developed  a  strangeness,  a 
madness,  some  say,  that  incapacitated  him 
for  his  command.  He  was  removed,  and 
the  "Alliance"  was  sailed  into  Boston  in 
charge  of  her  lieutenant.  Landais  was  now 
tried  by  a  court-martial  and  dismissed  from 
the  naval  service. 

Meantime  Jones  and  Franklin  had  suc 
ceeded  in  obtaining  from  the  French  govern 
ment  the  loan  of  the  "Ariel."  Having 
loaded  her  with  supplies,  Jones  sailed  for 
America  on  October  7,  1780;  but,  encounter 
ing  a  storm  which  dismasted  his  vessel,  he 
was  compelled  to  return  to  port.  On  De 
cember  18  he  again  put  to  sea;  and  in  Feb 
ruary,  1781,  he  reached  Philadelphia. 

With  the  departure  of  Jones,  the  Euro 
pean  waters,  for  the  first  time  in  four  years, 
were  clear  of  the  armed  vessels  of  the  Conti 
nental  fleet.  The  venerable  Franklin,  vexed 

1.      Hale,  Franklin  in  France,  I,    330-31. 


Ncri'y  of  t/ic  American  Revolution   301 

with  the  discords  and  details  of  naval  affairs, 
must  have  drawn  a  sigh  of  relief  when  the 
last  Continental  vessel  and  captain  had 
withdrawn  from  France.  The  most  dis 
agreeable  of  his  duties  as  "Admiral,"  to  use 
John  Adams's  word  in  this. connection,  now 
came  to  an  end.  Concerning  his  vexations, 
Franklin  wrote  to  one  of  his  agents  in  the 
summer  of  1780:  "I  have  been  too  long  in 
hot  water,  plagued  almost  to  death  with  the 
passions,  vagaries,  and  ill  humours,  and 
madnesses  of  other  people.  I  must  have  a 
little  repose."1  He  had  now  for  some  time 
been  writing  to  Congress,  asking  to  be  re 
lieved  of  his  naval  duties.  An  example  of 
his  requests  may  be  extracted  from  a  letter 
of  March  4,  1780,  to  the  President  of  Con 
gress:  "As  vessels  of  war  under  my  care 
create  me  a  vast  deal  of  business  (of  a  kind, 
too,  that  I  am  unexperienced  in),  I  must  re 
peat  my  earnest  request  that  some  person 
of  skill  in  such  affairs  may  be  appointed,  in 
the  character  of  consul,  to  take  charge  of 
them.  I  imagine  that  much  would  by  that 
means  be  saved  in  the  expense  of  their  vari 
ous  re  fittings  and  supplies,  which  to  me  ap 
pears  enormous."2 

From  the  beginning  of  1781  until  the  close 
of  the  Revolution  the  duties  of  the  Naval 


1.  Bigelow's  Franklin,  VII,    97-98,  Frank 
lin  to  Jonathan  Williams,  June  27,  1780. 

2.  Wharton,    Diplomatic    Correspondence, 
III,  535. 


302  A'ai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

Office  at  Paris  were  comparatively  light. 
Few  armed  vessels  were  sent  from  America 
to  France;  and  those  that  were,  remained 
only  long  enough  to  refit,  load  with  supplies, 
and  receive  letters  and  despatches  for  Amer 
ica.  Over  such  ships  Franklin  exercised 
little  or  no  control.  The  Agent  of  Marine, 
not  wishing  his  vessels  to  slip  from  his  grasp 
when  within  the  reach  of  orders  from  Paris, 
sometimes  directed  his  captains  who  were 
about  to  sail  for  France  to  return  home  on  a 
specified  date.  In  May,  1782,  he  wrote  dis 
approvingly  to  Congress  concerning  the  "de 
lays  and  exorbitant  expenses  which  have 
accrued  from  the  detention  of  public  vessels 
in  Europe."1  Acting  under  the  direct  or 
ders  of  Morris,  Captain  Barry,  in  the  "Alli 
ance,"  in  February,  1782,  left  L'Orient  and 
cruised  without  success  for  seventeen  days. 
This  was  the  last  cruise  in  European  waters 
which  was  made  by  a  Continental  vessel  dur 
ing  the  Revolution. 

On  July  10,  1781,  Congress  gave  Thomas 
Barclay  a  commission  as  vice-consul  to 
France  in  the  place  of  William  Palfrey,  who 
had,  in  November,  1780,  been  appointed 
consul  to  France,  and  had  gone  down  with 
the  vessel  on  which  he  took  passage.2  In 
addition  to  his  strictly  consular  duties,  Bar- 


1.  Force  Transcripts,  Library  of  Congress, 
137,  3,  p.  313. 

2.  Journals   of   Continental   Congress,    No 
vember  4,  1780;  July  10,  1781. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  303 

clay  was  authorized  to  "assist  in  directing 
our  Naval  affairs."1  When  Barclay  entered 
upon  his  duties  in  France,  our  naval  busi 
ness  was  narrowing  to  the  settling  of  ac 
counts.  He  was  in  time,  however,  to  rep 
resent  his  country  in  the  trial  and  sale  of  a 
few  prizes,  to  assist  in  the  shipping  of  some 
supplies,  and  to  sell  the  Continental  ship, 
"Due  de  Lauzim."  In  November,  1782, 
Congress  appointed  Barclay  a  commissioner 
for  settling  the  Revolutionary  accounts  of 
the  United  States  in  Europe;  and  in  Decem 
ber  Morris  gave  him  his  instructions.2  Bar 
clay  was  directed  to  inquire  into  the  ac 
counts  of  the  agents  for  fitting  out  armed 
vessels  in  Europe,  and  to  make  a  settlement 
with  the  various  prize  agents  into  whose 
hands  prizes  or  moneys  derived  from  their 
sale  had  come.  Barclay's  duties,  both  as 
consul  and  as  commissioner,  came  to  an  end 
in  the  fall  of  1785,  when  he  was  appointed 
to  negotiate  a  treaty  with  Morocco. 

Some  of  the  duties  of  Barclay  as  commis 
sioner  for  settling  accounts  were  in  Decem 
ber,  1783,  vested  in  John  Paul  Jones.  In 
accordance  with  a  resolution  of  Congress, 
Franklin  appointed  Jones  agent  of  the  Unit 
ed  States  to  solicit  the  payment  of  prize 


1.  Force  Transcripts,  Library  of  Congress, 
137,  1,  p.  463,  Instructions  to  Barclay. 

2  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  No 
vember  18,  1782;  Force  Transcripts,  137,  p. 
55,  Instructions  to  Barclay. 


304  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

money,  "in  whose  hands  soever  the  money 
may  be  detained,"  arising  from  prizes  cap 
tured  by  vessels  under  Jones's  command  in 
European  waters.1  Jones  was  engaged  in 
this  work  during  1784  and  1785.  Under 
the  sanction  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  the  Amer 
ican  Minister  at  Paris,  Jones  in  1786  set  out 
for  Copenhagen,  to  settle  a  dispute  with  the 
Danish  Court  over  three  of  his  prizes. 
These  ships  had  been  captured,  in  1779,  by 
the  fleet  under  his  command,  and  had  been 
sent  into  Bergen,  Norway.  The  Danish  gov 
ernment  had  restored  them  to  the  British. 
Jones's  journey  was  interrupted  and  he  did 
not  reach  Copenhagen  until  1788.  The  Dan 
ish  government  now  transferred  the  settle 
ment  of  the  disputed  claims  to  Paris,  plead 
ing  that  Jones  had  not  sufficient  authority 
to  treat.  By  June,  Jones  had  left  Copen 
hagen,  had  accepted  the  commission  of 
Vice-Admiral  in  the  Russian  navy,  and  was 
writing  from  his  flagship  "Wolodimcr"  to 
his  friend  Jefferson  at  Paris.  The  Revolu 
tionary  accounts  in  Europe  possessed  the 
usual  vitality,  not  to  say  immortality,  of 
government  claims.  Certain  Revolutionary 
claims  of  South  Carolina,  growing  out  of  ex 
penses  which  that  state  incurred  in  Europe 
in  connection  with  the  ship  "Indian,"  are 


1.  Journals  of  Congress,  November  1, 
1783;  C.  H.  Lincoln,  Calendar  of  John  Paul 
Jones  Manuscripts,  188,  Franklin  to  Jones, 
December  17,  1783. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  305 

now  pending  before  the  government  at 
Washington. 

In  the  West  Indies  the  chief  naval  station 
for  the  Continental  vessels  was  St.  Pierre, 
Martinique.  Bound  on  commercial  errands, 
our  vessels  occasionally  visited  St.  Eustatius, 
until  its  capture  by  the  British  in  February, 
1781;  Cape  Francois,  Hispaniola;  and  in  the 
late  years  of  the  war,  Havana.  The  United 
States  had  commercial  agents  at  these  three 
ports.  But  at  Martinique  our  vessels  were 
refitted,  repaired,  and  provisioned  when 
ever  convenience  suggested,  or  stress  of 
weather  compelled,  the  seeking  of  a  friendly 
harbor  in  this  part  of  the  Atlantic.  In  June, 
1776,  William  Bingham,  who  had  been  the 
secretary  of  the  Committee  of  Secret  Corre 
spondence,  went  to  Martinique  as  the  com 
mercial  agent  of  Congress;  and  in  March, 
1780,  he  was  succeeded  by  Parsons,  Alston 
and  Company. 

The  commercial  agent  at  Martinique  did  a 
varied  and  lively  business.  He  was  em 
ployed  in  shipping  supplies,  obtaining  con 
voys  for  his  merchantmen,  refitting  priva 
teers,  and  now  and  then  Continental  vessels, 
disposing  of  prizes,  and  forwarding  to  Con 
gress  naval  intelligence  concerning  the  West 
Indies  and  Europe.  Congress  at  times  sent 
despatches  and  supplies  to  France  by  the 
way  of  Martinique;  and  the  American  rep 
resentatives  and  commercial  agents  in 
France,  now  and  then,  communicated  with 


306  Nary  of  tJie  American  Revolution 

the  United  States  through  the  same  island. 
In  October,  1777,  Bingham  wrote  to  Con 
gress  that,  if  France  should  declare  war 
against  Great  Britain,  many  prizes  would 
naturally  be  sent  into  Martinique,  and  that 
he  wished  to  be  directed  about  proper  forms 
and  methods  for  trying  and  selling  them.1 
In  December  American  prizes  and  privateers 
were  being  publicly  received  into  the  ports 
of  Martinique,  and  Bingham  was  shipping 
arms  to  America  on  board  American  vessels 
under  the  convoy  of  a  frigate  which  he  had 
hired  for  that  purpose.  In  January,  1778, 
the  permitting  of  these  favors  was  causing 
spirited  letters  between  the  "General"  of 
Martinique  and  the  Governor  of  the  British 
island  of  Antigua.2 

During  1779  three  Continental  vessels,  the 
"Deane,"  "  General  Gates,"  and  "  Confed 
eracy/'  put  into  Martinique  to  refit,  repair, 
and  obtain  provisions.  The  expense  to 
which  Bingham's  empty  treasury  was  sub 
jected  caused  him  to  complain  to  Congress. 
The  only  Continental  armed  vessel  purchased 
at  Martinique  was  the  little  schooner 
"Fame,"  7  guns.  The  commercial  agent 
made  this  purchase  on  his  own  responsibility 
in  February,  1781,  in  order  to  carry  to  Phila 
delphia  the  news  of  the  capture  of  St. 
Eustatius  by  the  British.  But  unfortun- 


1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con- 
ess,  90,  p.  9. 

2.  Ibid.,  90,  pp.  21,  27. 


A"(7T'v  of  the  American  Revolution   307 

atcly,  the  "Fame"  was  forced  to  bequeath 
her  errand  to  a  better-fated  conveyance,  as 
the  British  carried  her  into  Antigua.1 

Our  naval  affairs  on  the  Mississippi  during 
the  Revolution,  although  conducted  on  a 
small  scale,  are  not  devoid  of  interest;  nor  do 
they  entirely  escape  the  glamour  of  romance 
which  seems  to  touch  everything  connected 
with  the  early  history  of  this  region.  Oliver 
Pollock,  originally  a  Pennsylvania!!,  and  a 
man  of  ability,  integrity,  and  patriotism, 
who  freely  spent  his  private  fortune  for  his 
country,  was  the  commercial  agent  at  New 
Orleans  during  the  Revolution,  and  to  him 
fell  sundry  naval  duties.  Pollock  was  re 
sponsible  to  the  Commercial  Committee,  the 
third  committee  of  Congress  that  was  simul 
taneously  purchasing  and  arming  vessels. 
He  was  intelligently  and  heartily  assisted  in 
his  work  at  New  Orleans  by  the  Governor  of 
Louisiana,  Galvez,  "that  worthy  Noble 
man,"  as  Pollock  called  him,  who  "gave 
me  the  delightful  assurance  that  he  would 
go  every  possible  length  for  the  interest  of 
Congress."2  It  is  refreshing  to  find  for  once 
American  and  Spanish  officials  acting  in 
concert  and  inspiring  mutual  confidence  and 
affection.  Early  in  1777,  immediately  after 

1.  Force  Transcripts,  Library  of  Congress, 
137,  1,  p.  357. 

2.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  50,    pp.    1-13,    Pollock    to    President    of 
Congress,    a    resume    of    Pollock's   services    as 
commercial  agent  at  New  Orleans. 


308  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

Galvez  became  governor,  he,  with  slight 
limitations,  opened  the  port  of  New  Orleans 
to  American  vessels  of  war  and  their  prizes. 
Galvez's  favors  to  Americans  called  down 
upon  him  the  threats  of  the  British  at  Pen- 
sacola  to  have  his  conduct  brought  to  the 
attention  of  the  Court  at  Madrid. 

Pollock  received  from  Congress  blank 
commissions  both  for  officers  in  the  Conti 
nental  navy  and  for  privateers.  One  of  the 
privateers  which  he  commissioned,  the  "  Re 
prisal,"  Captain  Calvert,  sent  into  a  safe 
port,  in  April,  1778,  a  prize  whose  cargo  con 
sisted  of  flour,  sugar,  coffee,  and  forty-eight 
slaves.1  In  March,  1778,  Captain  Willing 
and  a  small  party  of  men  arrived  in  New 
Orleans  from  Pennsylvania,  having  come  by 
the  way  of  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  rivers. 
They  captured  several  prizes  on  the  Misssis- 
sippi,  which  were  sold  in  New  Orleans  to  the 
value  of  $37,500.  One  of  these,  the  "  Rebec 
ca,"  Pollock  bought  for  Congress  on  his  own 
responsibility.  He  obtained  permission 
from  Galvez  to  fit  out  his  ship  in  a  warlike 
manner;  and  he  decided  upon  an  armament, 
consisting  of  "16  six  pounders  upon  one 
Deck,  2  Bow  and  2  Stern  Chacers,  8  four 
pounders  upon  her  quarter  Deck,  with  Swiv 
els,  Cohorns,  &c."2  He  intended  to  enlist 
one  hundred  and  fifty  men  and  send  his  ship 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,    50,  p.    66. 

2.  Ibid.,  50,  pp.  77-81. 


Xary  of  the  American  Revolution  309 

against  His  Majesty's  sloop  of  war  "  Sylph/' 
which  was  defending  Manchac  on  Lake  Pont- 
chartrain.  Pollock  planned  to  obtain  most 
of  his  armament  from  Havana,  but  the 
Spanish  authorities  refused  to  permit  its 
shipment  even  after  Galvez  had  written  to 
the  Cuban  government.1 

By  July,  1779,  Pollock  had  succeeded  in 
obtaining  and  mounting  twenty-four  guns 
on  the  decks  of  his  ship,  which  he  had  now 
christened  the  "  Morris "  in  honor  of  his 
well-known  friend  at  Philadelphia.  He  had 
appointed  a  full  quota  of  officers ;  and  he  had 
engaged  seventy-six  men,  with  "  English  de 
serters  arriving  daily"  to  swell  the  comple 
ment.  The  captain  of  the  "Morris"  was 
William  Pickles,  a  man  found  to  be  "  cap 
able  and  steady  to  our  Cause. "  Pollock  had 
now  for  some  time  been  waiting  for  orders 
for  his  vessel  from  Philadelphia;  and  tired 
of  delay  he  was  on  the  point  of  sending  the 
"Morris"  cruising,  when  a  severe  hurricane 
swept  over  New  Orleans  doing  great  damage 
to  the  town  and  its  shipping.  The  "  Morris  " 
was  lost,  and  eleven  of  her  crew  were 
drowned;  the  rest  were  rescued  nine  miles 
below  the  city  clinging  to  the  wreckage  of 
their  vessel. 

Governor  Galvez's  heart  was  touched  by 
the  loss  of  the  Americans.  He  now  "  spared" 
Pollock  an  armed  schooner,  which  was  soon 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,  50,  p.  97. 


310  Xarv  of  the  American  Revolution 

fitted  out,  and  by  September  Pickles  was 
cruising  on  Lake  Pontchartrain.  On  Sep 
tember  10  Pickles  had  a  short,  but  hot,  dis 
pute  with  the  British  armed  sloop  "West 
Florida,"  which  was  forced  to  surrender, 
although  it  lost  but  four  men  to  Pickles's 
eight.  Pollock  now  fitted  out  the  "West 
Florida,"  and  sent  her  cruising  on  the  Lake. 
On  September  21  Pickles  captured  a  small 
British  settlement  on  the  north  side  of  Lake 
Pontchartrain.  He  made  prisoners  of  all  the 
inhabitants  who  refused  to  swear  allegiance 
to  the  United  States.  This  capitulation, 
Pollock  wrote  to  Congress,  gave  them  an 
undoubted  right  to  that  part  of  the  colony 
of  West  Florida  which  lay  along  Lake  Pont 
chartrain;  and  he  conceived,  in  language 
that  sounds  familiarly  like  that  of  later  ex 
pansionists,  that  the  capitulation  was  "a 
proper  Ground  on  which  to  claim  (at  any 
convenient  period)  the  Sovereignty  of  the 
Soil  and  the  Allegiance  of  the  Inhabitants."1 
In  October,  1779,  the  "West  Florida" 
cruised  on  the  Lake  at  the  request  of  Galvez 
for  the  protection  of  trade.  Letters  from 
Philadelphia  now  made  it  evident  to  Pollock 
that  Congress  wished  the  naval  force  on 
the  Mississippi  to  proceed  to  that  town. 
He  therefore  on  January  20,  1780,  gave 

1.      Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con- 

fress,  50,    p.     120,     Copy    of   Capitulation   of 
nhabitants     of     the     Settlements     on     Lake 
Pontchartrain,   dated  October    16,  1779,  with 
signatures  of  nineteen  men. 


Nary  of  the  American  Revolution   311 

Pickles  orders  to  sail  for  Philadelphia  after 
taking  on  a  cargo  of  tafia  and  sugar  at  Ha 
vana;  but  he  directed  Pickles,  before  enter 
ing  on  this  detail,  to  join  the  fleet  of  Galvez 
and  to  assist  in  the  reduction  of  Mobile  and 
Pensacola.1  This  was  an  undertaking  which 
Pollock  had  long  assigned  to  an  American 
fleet  and  army;  and  since  1777  he  had  urged 
it  most  audaciously  upon  Congress.  After 
aiding  in  the  capture  of  Mobile  and  taking 
a  small  prize  which  she  sent  into  that  town, 
the  "West  Florida"  proceeded  to  Philadel 
phia,  wrhere  she  arrived  about  the  first  of 
June,  1780.  Since  it  appeared  to  a  com 
mittee  of  Congress  that  the  "West  Florida" 
was  not  fit  for  a  cruiser,  she  wras  sold,  and 
her  crew  was  assigned  to  other  Continental 
vessels.2  Captain  Pickles  was  placed  in 
command  of  the  "  Mercury  "  packet  and  de 
tailed  to  take  Henry  Laurens  to  Amster 
dam.  Here  ends  the  story  of  the  Revolu 
tionary  navy  on  the  Mississippi. 

1.  Records  and  Papers  of  Continental  Con 
gress,    50,    pp.      123-25,      Pollock    to     Pickles, 
January  20,  1780. 

2.  Force  Transcripts,  Library  of  Congress, 
137,  2,  p.  281;  37,  p.  95. 


PART    II 


THE    STATE    NAVIES 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  NAVY  OF  MASSACHUSETTS 

With  the  exception  of  New  Jersey  and 
Delaware,  each  of  the  thirteen  original  states 
during  the  Revolution  owned  one  or  more 
armed  vessels.  Massachusetts,  Connecticut, 
Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and 
South  Carolina  had  the  largest  fleets.  New 
Hampshire  with  its  one  ship  and  Georgia 
with  its  four  galleys  just  escaped  from 
being  in  the  same  class  with  New  Jersey  and 
Delaware.  The  navies  of  Rhode  Island, 
New  York,  and  North  Carolina  were  small. 
The  navy  of  no  one  state  was  so  large  as 
that  of  Congress.  The  total  number  of 
state  craft,  however,  greatly  exceeded  the 
number  of  vessels  in  the  Continental  navy. 
The  state  vessels  on  the  average  were  smaller 
and  not  so  well  armed  as  the  Continental 
vessels.  The  states  generally  had  less  means 
for  naval  purposes  at  their  disposal  than  had 
Congress,  and  were  therefore  not  so  well 
able  to  build  large  vessels.  Then,  too,  the 
chief  need  of  each  state  for  a  navy  was  to 
defend  its  seaports,  coasts,  and  trade.  For 
such  service  small  craft,  adapted  for  run- 


316  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

ning  in  and  out  of  shallow  harbors,  rivers, 
and  bays,  was  demanded.  The  states 
therefore  provided  themselves  with  armed 
boats  of  various  sizes,  galleys  with  and 
without  sails,  half-galleys,  floating  batteries, 
barges,  and  fire-ships.  Besides  such  vessels 
as  these,  most  of  the  states  had  a  few  larger 
and  stouter  sailing  craft,  mounting  gener 
ally  from  ten  to  twenty  guns,  and  fairly  well 
fitted  for  deep-sea  navigation.  The  one 
state  whose  deep-sea  exceeded  its  inshore 
craft  was  Massachusetts. 

The  history  of  naval  administration  in 
the  several  states  possesses  some  common 
features.  It  will  be  recalled  that  in  most  of 
the  states  the  provincial  government  about 
the  year  1775  was  superseded  by  a  revolu 
tionary  government,  and  this  in  turn  about 
a  year  later  wras  succeeded  by  a  permanent 
state  government.  The  revolutionary  gov 
ernment  consisted  of  a  legislative  body,  or 
provincial  congress,  and  an  executive  body, 
or  committee  of  safety.  The  permanent 
state  government  consisted  of  a  legislature 
of  one  or  two  houses  and  an  executive, 
which  was  either  a  council,  or  a  governor 
and  council.  The  initial  naval  administra 
tion  in  the  states  usually  fell  to  the  com 
mittee  of  safety,  or  revolutionary  executive, 
which,  upon  the  change  to  a  permanent 
state  government,  bequeathed  its  naval 
duties  to  the  council  or  to  the  governor  and 
council.  In  most  of  the  states  the  details 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  317 

of  naval  administration  were  at  some  time 
during  the  Revolution  lodged  with  an  execu 
tive  board.  Some  states  had  separate  boards 
for  naval  and  military  affairs;  in  other 
states,  one  board  performed  both  functions. 

The  history  of  naval  administration  in 
the  states  falls  into  two  periods,  one  em 
bracing  the  years  from  1775  to  1778,  the 
other  the  years  from  1779  to  1783.  In  the 
first  period  each  state  procured  a  naval  arm 
ament,  as  a  rule,  for  the  general  purpose  of 
providing  a  naval  defence,  and  not  to  meet 
some  specific  call  for  armed  vessels.  By 
1779  the  first  naval  craft  had  been  largely 
captured,  destroyed,  or  sold;  and  often  the 
first  machinery  of  naval  administration  had 
been  in  large  part  removed.  In  response  to 
special  needs  for  armed  vessels,  calls  for 
which  came  most  often  from  those  who  were 
suffering  from  the  ravages  of  the  British 
fleets,  the  states  now  procured  additional 
vessels,  and  often  devised  new  administra 
tive  machinery  to  manage  them. 

In  defensive  warfare,  the  problem  in  each 
state  was  to  provide  for  the  defence  of  its 
ports,  trade,  coasts,  and  shipping.  The 
offensive  warfare  of  the  state  navies,  which 
was  quite  secondary  in  importance,  con 
sisted  chiefly  of  commerce-destroying,  con 
ducted  along  the  great  ocean-paths  of 
British  trade.  The  principal  problem  here 
was  for  the  American  vessels  in  leaving 
home  ports  and  in  returning  with  their 


318  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

prizes  to  elude  the  British  vessels,  which 
hovered  along  the  American  coast,  especially 
at  the  mouths  of  the  Chesapeake,  Delaware, 
and  Narragansett  bays.  It  is  always  to  be 
remembered  that  in  all  the  states  the  priva 
teers  exceeded  the  state  craft,  which  were 
often  insignificant  in  comparison. 

The  reader  recalls  that  in  June,  1775,  the 
battle  of  Bunker  Hill  was  fought,  a  British 
army  occupied  Boston,  and  British  vessels 
sailed  the  New  England  seas  with  little  or 
no  opposition.  These  vessels  had  already 
committed  depredations  and  "  piracies" 
upon  the  coasts  and  trade  of  Massachusetts, 
and  were  obstructing  the  importation  of 
ammunition  and  provisions  for  the  Conti 
nental  army.  It  was  under  these  circum 
stances  that  Massachusetts  took  her  first 
step  towards  procuring  a  naval  armament. 
On  June  7  her  third  Provincial  Congress  ap 
pointed  a  committee  of  nine  "  to  consider  the 
expediency  of  establishing  a  number  of 
small  armed  vessels,  to  cruise  on  our  sea 
coasts,  for  the  protection  of  our  trade,  and 
the  annoyance  of  our  enemies."  The  Pro 
vincial  Congress,  which  moved  very  cau 
tiously,  enjoined  secrecy  on  the  committee. 
On  June  10  three  additional  members  were 
added  to  the  committee;  but  later  in  the 
day  a  new  committee  consisting  of  seven 
members  was  apparently  substituted  for  the 
old  one.  On  June  12  the  committee  "ap 
pointed  to  consider  the  expediency  of  estab- 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   319 

lishing  a  number  of  armed  vessels  "  made  a 
report  which  provided  for  the  fitting  out  of 
not  less  than  six  vessels,  to  mount  eight  to 
fourteen  carriage  guns,  and  to  cruise  un 
der  the  orders  of  the  Committee  of  Safe 
ty — the  chief  executive  organ  of  the 
Provincial  Congress  consisting  of  nine 
members,  three  of  whom  were  from 
Boston.  This  report  came  up  several 
times  between  June  12  and  June  20.  Fi 
nally  on  the  latter  date  "the  matter  was 
ordered  to  subside.'71  The  Battle  of  Bunker 
Hill  which  was  fought  on  June  17  may  have 
had  something  to  do  with  this  action  of  the 
Provincial  Congress. 

On  July  19,  1775,  the  Revolutionary  gov 
ernment  in  Massachusetts  was  superseded 
by  a  permanent  government  consisting  of 
a  House  of  Representatives  and  a  Council 
of  eighteen  members  elected  by  the  House; 
the  two  houses  were  called  the  General 
Court.  The  continued  depredations  of  the 
British  now  caused  several  endangered  ports 
to  ask  the  General  Court  to  provide  them 
with  a  naval  defence.  The  part  of  Massa 
chusetts  which  during  the  Revolution  was 
most  exposed  to  the  attacks  of  the  British, 

1.  Journals  of  Third  Provincial  Congress 
of  Massachusetts,  June  7,  June  10,  June  11, 
June  12,  June  13,  June  16,  June  19,  and  June 
20,  1775.  All  references  to  the  state  records 
of  Massachusetts  refer  to  the  manuscripts  or 
early  printed  copies  to  be  found  in  the  State 
Library  or  State  Archives  at  Boston. 


320  Navy  of  tJic  American  Revolution 

and  which  was  most  troublesome  to  defend, 
was  the  coast  of  Maine,  then  often  referred 
to  as  the  Eastern  Coast.  In  August,  1775, 
a  petition  came  to  the  General  Court  from 
Machias,  a  town  situated  on  the  Maine  coast 
a  few  miles  west  of  the  present  Eastport, 
asking  that  commissions  be  granted  to  offi 
cers  and  men  on  board  two  armed  vessels 
which  citizens  of  Machias  had  fitted  out  for 
the  defense  of  their  town.  In  response  the 
General  Court  took  into  the  service  of  the 
state  the  sloop  "Machias  Liberty"  and  the 
schooner  "Diligent."1  Jeremiah  O'Brian, 
one  of  the  men  who  had  signed  the  petition, 
was  commissioned  by  the  Council  com- 
mander-in-chief  of  the  two  vessels;  and  he 
was  directed  to  enlist  a  number  of  men,  not 
to  exceed  thirty,  for  each  vessel.  The  "  Ma 
chias  Liberty"  and  the  "Diligent"  were  in 
the  service  of  the  state  until  October,  1776, 
when  they  were  discharged.  About  the  first 
of  October,  1775,  Salem  and  Newburyport 
each  asked  the  General  Court  for  naval  aid 
similar  to  that  granted  to  Machias,  but  did 
not  receive  it.2 

The  General  Court  of  Massachusetts  next 
turned  its  attention  to  privateering.     The 


1.  Journals    of     Massachusetts     House     of 
Representatives,  August  21,   1775.      O'Brian's 
name  is  found  spelled  in  various  ways. 

2.  Ibid.,  September    29,    October   2,  Octo 
ber    4,     1775;    Records    of    General  Court    of 
Massachusetts,  October  4,  1775. 


Nary  of  the  American  Revolution  321 

acts  of  the  states  on  this  head  fall  into  two 
general  classes;  those  which  in  terms  estab 
lished  state  privateering,  and  those  which 
adopted  Continental  privateering  or  accom 
modated  state  laws  to  the  same.  After  the 
first  half  of  1776  all  the  states  used  Continen 
tal  commissions  and  bonds.  Massachusetts, 
moving  in  this  matter  before  Congress,  nec 
essarily  established  state  privateering.  On 
September  28,  1775,  her  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  having  such  establishment  in 
view,  appointed  a  committee  of  seven  to 
consider  the  "Expediency  of  fitting  out  a 
Number  of  Armed  Vessels.''  On  October  9, 
this  committee  reported  in  favor  of  institut 
ing  privateering  and  a  prize  court  to  try 
cases  of  capture.  On  October  14  a  bill  em 
bodying  the  committee's  recommendations 
was  introduced.  It  now  passed  slowly 
through  the  legislative  mill,  and  on  Novem 
ber  1  it  became  a  law.1  John  Adams  once 
referred  to  this  statute  of  Massachusetts  as 
one  of  the  most  important  documents  in  the 
history  of  the  Revolution.  Its  preamble 
was  the  work  of  Elbridge  Gerry,  and  the 
body  of  the  law  was  drafted  by  James  Sulli 
van,  many  years  later  Governor  of  Massa 
chusetts.2  Gerry  stated  the  sanctions  for 

1 .  Journals  of  Massachusetts  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,   September  28,  October  6,  9     14 
17,   18,   19,  27,  November  1,   1775. 

2.  Austin's  Gerry,  I,  94-95;  Works  of  John 
Adams,  X,  37. 


322  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

the  law.  These  he  found  in  the  arbitrary 
and  sanguinary  acts  of  Great  Britain,  in  the 
charter  of  Massachusetts  granted  by  King 
William  and  Queen  Mary,  and  lastly  in  the 
resolution  of  the  Continental  Congress  of 
July  18,  1775,  recommending  each  colony 
to  provide  by  armed  vessels  or  otherwise 
for  the  protection  of  its  harbors  and  naviga 
tion. 

The  Massachusetts  law  provided  that  all 
vessels  convicted  of  making  unlawful  inva 
sions  or  attacks  on  the  seacoasts  or  naviga 
tion  of  any  part  of  America  should  be  for 
feited.  The  Council  was  authorized  to 
grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  to  mas 
ters  and  owners  of  vessels  upon  their  enter 
ing  into  bond  faithfully  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  their  office  and  to  observe  the  naval 
laws  of  the  colony.  Three  admiralty  dis 
tricts  embracing  the  counties  on  the  Massa 
chusetts  seacoast  were  established.  The 
Southern  district  with  the  seat  of  its 
court  at  Plymouth  embraced  Plymouth 
county  and  the  counties  to  the  southward; 
the  Middle  district  with  the  seat  of  its 
court  at  Ipswich  embraced  the  counties  of 
Suffolk,  Middlesex,  and  Essex  and  extended 
from  Plymouth  county  to  New  Hampshire; 
and  the  Eastern  district  with  the  seat  of  its 
court  at  North  Yarmouth  embraced  the 
seacoast  counties  of  Maine.  The  form  of 
procedure  in  these  courts  was  fixed  for  both 
captured  and  recaptured  vessels.  In  the 


Nary  of  the  American  Revolution   323 

latter  case  salvage  was  from  one-third  to 
one-fourth  of  the  selling  price  of  the  vessel. 
The  facts  in  prize  cases  were  to  be  tried  by 
twelve  good  and  lawful  men.  At  this  time 
the  people  of  Massachusetts  were  so  enraged 
at  the  judges  of  the  former  Provincial  ad 
miralty  court  that  they  would  have  univer 
sally  condemned  the  trying  of  facts  in  prize 
cases  by  judges.1 

The  Council  soon  appointed  three  judges 
of  admiralty,  Nathan  Gushing  for  the 
Southern  district,  Timothy  Pickering  for 
the  Middle  district,  and  James  Sullivan  for 
the  Eastern  district.  Elbridge  Gerry  de 
clined  the  judgeship  for  the  Middle  district. 
After  trying  about  one  hundred  and  fifty 
prize  cases,  Pickering  in  June,  1777,  re 
signed,  and  was  succeeded  by  Nathan  Gush 
ing,  who  now  served  as  judge  in  both  the 
Southern  and  Middle  districts.2  Compara 
tively  few  cases  were  tried  in  the  Southern 
and  Eastern  districts.  Timothy  Langdon 
was  for  a  long  time  judge  of  the  Eastern 
district. 

During  the  fall  of  1775  the  General  Court 
took  no  steps  towards  establishing  a  state 
navy.  It  was  at  this  time  assisting  Wash 
ington  in  obtaining  and  arming  vessels  for 

1.  Amory's  Sullivan,  II,  378-79,  James  Sul 
livan  to  Gerry,  December  25,  1779. 

2.  Records  of  Massachusetts  Council,  No 
vember  14,  December  9,  December  12,   1775; 
Pickering's  Pickering,  I,  79-80;  Amory's  Sulli 
van,  I,  63. 


324  Nai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

the  Continental  military  service  around 
Boston.  Early  in  December  the  House  of 
Representatives,  acting  on  a  recommenda 
tion  contained  in  a  letter  from  John  Adams 
at  Philadelphia,  resolved  to  obtain  statis 
tics  on  the  number  of  officers,  seamen,  and 
vessels,  suitable  for  naval  purposes,  in  the 
seaports  of  Massachusetts.  On  December 
29  the  Council  declared  for  a  navy  by  passing 
the  following  resolution :  "  Whereas  several 
of  the  United  Colonies  have  of  late  thought 
it  expedient  and  necessary  to  fit  out  armed 
Vessels  for  the  Defence  of  American  Liberty, 
and  it  appears  to  this  Court  necessary  that 
Measures  be  taken  by  this  Colony  for  our 
further  Protection  by  Sea:  Therefore,  Re 
solved  that  John  Adams  and  Joseph  Palmer, 
Esqurs.  with  such  as  the  Hon.  House  shall 
join  be  a  committee  for  fitting  out  one  or 
more  Vessels  for  the  Defence  of  American 
Liberty."1 

The  House  at  once  appointed  its  members 
of  the  committee,  which  on  January  12, 
1776,  made  a  report  favorable  to  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  navy.2  Accordingly,  on  Feb- 

1.  Records  of  General  Court  of  Massachu 
setts,  December  29,  1775. 

2.  Journals  of  Massachusetts  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,  January   12,   1776.      On  January 
11   the   Council  resolved  that  two   ships,   one 
of   36,   and  the   other  of   32   guns,   should  be 
built.      On    the    same    day    both    House    and 
Council  voted  to  recommit  the  resolution  in 
order  that  the   committee  which  prepared  it 
might  report   on   the   expense  to  be  incurred 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   325 

ruary  7  a  resolution  passed  the  General 
Court  to  build  ten  sloops  of  war,  of  110  or 
115  tons  burden,  each,  suitable  for  carrying 
fourteen  to  sixteen  carriage  guns,  6-pounders 
and  4-pounders.  A  joint  committee  of  the 
two  houses  was  appointed  to  build  the  ves 
sels,  and  £10,000  was  voted  for  that  pur 
pose.1  On  the  16th  the  committee  was  au 
thorized  to  contract  for  the  building  of  only 
five  vessels,  until  there  was  a  prospect  of 
procuring  materials  for  ten;  it  was  author 
ized  to  buy  five  vessels,  if  it  thought  best.2 
By  July,  1776,  the  sloop  "  Tyrannicide " 
built  at  Salisbury,  the  brigantine  "  Rising 
Empire"  built  at  Dartmouth,  and  the  brig 
antine  "  Independence  "  built  at  Kingston 
were  ready  for  sea;  and  by  September  the 
sloops  "Republic"  and  "Freedom"  built  at 
Swanzey,  and  the  "Massachusetts"  built  at 
Salisbury  were  completed. 

Meanwhile  the  General  Court  had  pre 
pared  and  adopted  the  legislation  necessary 
to  establish  a  navy.  It  had  drafted  proper 
naval  forms ;  and  it  had  appointed  a  number 
of  naval  officers.  A  partial  pay-table  was 


in  building  and  fitting  the  two  ships.  It  does 
not  appear  that  further  action  was  taken. — 
Records  of  Massachusetts  Council,  January 
11,  1776. 

1.  Journals  of  Massachusetts  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,     February    C,     1776;    Records   of 
Massachusetts  Council,  February  7,  1776. 

2.  Journals    of     Massachusetts     House    of 
Representatives,  February  16,  1776. 


326  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

established  on  February  8.1  This  on  April 
12  was  succeeded  by  a  new  one,  which  gen 
erally  raised  wages,  and  which  provided  for 
a  number  of  new  offices.  A  captain  was  now 
to  receive  a  monthly  wage  of  £8;  a  first 
lieutenant,  £5,  8s.;  a  second  lieutenant,  £5; 
a  master,  £4;  a  mate,  £3;  a  surgeon,  £7; 
and  an  ordinary  seaman,  £2.  Each  vessel 
was  to  be  provided  with  115  officers  and 
seamen.  No  better  proof  of  the  rawness  of 
the  naval  service  is  needed  than  that  af 
forded  by  the  regulation  that  recruits, 
whether  officers,  seamen,  or  marines,  should 
furnish  themselves  with  "a  good  effective 
Fire  Arm,  Cartouch  Box,  Cutlass,  and 
Blanket/'  The  captains  were  ordered  to 
recommend  to  the  Council  a  list  of  inferior 
officers  and  to  enlist  the  proposed  number 
of  seamen  and  marines.  Captors  were  given 
one-third  of  the  proceeds  of  prizes.2 

On  April  27,  1776,  the  General  Court  fixed 
the  respective  shares  of  the  proceeds  of 
prizes  for  officers  and  seamen:  a  captain 
was  to  receive  six  shares,  and  "all  the  Cab- 
bin  Furniture;"  a  first  lieutenant,  five 
shares;  a  drummer,  one  and  one-fourth 
shares;  a  seaman,  one  share;  and  a  boy,  one- 
half  a  share.3  On  April  29,  in  order  to  en- 

1.  Journals  of  Massachusetts  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,    February    7,    1776;    Records   of 
Massachusetts  Council,  February  8,  1776. 

2.  Journals    of     Massachusetts     House    of 
Representatives,  April  12,  1776. 

3.  Ibid.,  April  27,  1776. 


Xtu'y  of  the  American  Revolution   327 

courage  enlistment,  an  advance  of  one 
month's  wages  was  voted  to  recruits.  On 
the  same  day  it  was  decided  that  "the  Uni 
form  of  Officers  be  Green  and  White,  and 
that  the  Colours  be  a  white  Flagg,  with  a 
green  Pine  Tree,  and  an  Inscription, l  Appeal 
to  Heaven.'  m  On  July  26  the  Council  ap 
pointed  a  prize  agent  in  each  of  the  three 
admiralty  districts,  whose  duty  was  to  rep 
resent  the  state  in  receiving,  trying,  and 
selling  prizes.2  At  times  the  prize  agents 
assisted  in  fitting  out  vessels. 

During  the  first  half  of  1776  the  law  of 
November  1,  1775,  establishing  privateering, 
was  three  times  amended  and  remodelled.3 
The  law  was  thereby  accommodated  to  the 
resolutions  of  the  Continental  Congress  fix 
ing  the  kinds  of  property  subject  to  capture, 
and  the  respective  shares  of  captors  and  re- 
captors.  Doubts  which  had  arisen  as  to 
the  proper  construction  of  the  original  act 
were  now  removed.  The  procedure  before 
admiralty  courts  was  made  more  specific. 
In  cases  of  captures  made  by  Continental 
vessels,  appeals  were  permitted  from  state 
admiralty  courts  to  the  Continental  Con 
gress;  in  all  other  cases,  appeals  were  al 
lowed  to  the  superior  state  courts.  In  each 

1.  Journals  of  Massachusetts  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,  April  29,  1776;  Records  of  Massa 
chusetts  Council,  April  29,  1776. 

2.  Ibid.  (Records),  July  26,  1776. 

3.  Goodell,  Laws  of  Massachusetts    Febru 
ary  14,  April  13,  May  8,  1776. 


328  Nary  of  the  American  Revolution 

of  the  three  admiralty  districts  in  Massa 
chusetts  additional  towns  were  named  where 
court  might  be  held.  The  towns  named  for 
the  Middle  district  were  Boston,  Salem,  Ips 
wich,  and  Newburyport. 

During  the  summer  and  fall  of  1776  the 
instructions  and  orders  to  the  captains  of 
the  armed  vessels  were  issued  to  them  by 
the  Council,  having  been  previously  pre 
pared  by  a  committee.  The  following  in 
structions,  which  were  drafted  by  Thomas 
Gushing  and  Daniel  Hopkins,  were  given  to 
Captain  John  Fisk,  and  will  suffice  as  a 
sample  of  such  documents : 

"The  Brigantine  Tyrannicide  under  your 
Command  being  properly  Armed  and  Man'd 
and  in  other  respects  fitted  for  a  Cruise  you 
are  hereby  Ordered  and  directed  immedi 
ately  to  proceed  to  sea  and  use  your  utmost 
Endeavors  to  protect  the  Sea  Coast  and 
Trade  of  the  United  States  and  you  are  also 
directed  to  exert  yourself  in  making  Cap 
tures  of  all  Ships  and  other  Vessels  Goods 
Wares  and  Mechandise  belonging  to  the 
King  of  Great  Britain  or  any  of  his  subjects 
wherever  residing  excepting  only  the  Ships 
and  Goods  of  the  Inhabitants  of  Bermuda 
and  the  Bahama  Islands — You  are  directed 
not  to  Cruize  further  Southward  than  Lati 
tude  Twelve  North  nor  farther  East  than  Lon 
gitude  Nine  Degrees  West  from  London  nor 
farther  West  than  the  Shoals  of  Nantucket. 
At  all  times  using  necessary  precautions  to 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   329 

prevent  your  Vessel  from  falling  into  the 
hands  of  the  Enemy. 

"And  Whereas  you  have  received  a  Com 
mission  authorizing  you  to  make  Captures 
aforesaid  and  a  set  of  Instructions  have 
been  delivered  you  for  regulating  your  Con 
duct  in  that  matter;  these  Instructions  you 
are  Hereby  directed  diligently  to  attend  to, 
and  if  you  are  so  fortunate  as  to  make  any 
Captures  you  are  to  Order  them  to  make 
the  first  safe  Harbor  within  the  United 
States. — and  you  are  further  Ordered  not 
to  expend  your  Ammunition  unnecessarily 
and  only  in  time  of  Action  or  firing  Alarm 
or  Signal  guns."1 

Until  October,  1776,  the  Massachusetts 
navy  was  administered  by  the  General 
Court,  committees  of  its  members,  the  Coun 
cil,  and  naval  agents.  The  General  Court 
for  the  period  of  its  recess  in  May,  1776, 
placed  the  armed  vessels  in  the  charge  of 
"the  committee  for  fortifying  the  harbor  of 
Boston."  By  the  fall  of  that  year  it  realized 
that  "secrecy,  dispatch,  and  economy  in 
conducting  the  war"  demanded  a  special 
executive  department.  Accordingly,  on 
October  26  it  established  a  Board  of  War 
consisting  of  nine  members,  any  five  of 
whom  constituted  a  quorum.  The  Board 


1.  Records  of  Massachusetts  Council,  Octo 
ber  29,  1776.  The  naval  documents  intro 
duced  in  the  narrative  on  the  Massachusetts 
navy  are  typical  of  similar  ones  in  other  states. 


330  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

of  War  was  "  empowered  to  Order  and  Direct 
the  Operations  of  the  Forces  in  the  Pay  of 
this  State,  both  by  sea  and  land,  by  giving 
the  Commanders  of  the  Troops,  Garrisons, 
and  Vessels  of  War,  such  Orders  for  their 
Conduct  and  Cruizes  from  time  to  time  as 
they  shall  think  proper."1  It  organized  by 
electing  a  president  and  secretary;  and  it 
rented  permanent  quarters  near  the  State 
House  in  Boston.  In  December,  1776, 
James  Warren,  later  Commissioner  for  the 
Continental  Navy  Board  at  Boston,  was 
president  of  the  Board  of  War.  Philip  Hen 
ry  Savage  was  for  a  long  time  its  president. 
Savage  presided  at  the  meeting  in  1773  at 
Old  South  Church  which  decided  that  the 
tea  should  not  be  landed.2  The  Board  of 
War  entered  upon  its  work  with  vigor  in 
November,  1776.  It  was  yearly  renewed, 
until  it  was  dissolved  in  February,  1781. 

The  principal  business  of  the  Board  of 
War  was  the  administration  of  the  naval, 
commercial,  and  military  affairs  of  the  state. 
Its  naval  and  commercial  duties  were  quite 
engrossing.  The  Board  kept  fairly  distinct 
the  activities  of  its  "armed"  and  "trading" 
vessels.  It  is  true  that  the  armed  vessels 
were  now  and  then  sent  on  commercial  er 
rands,  or  combined  in  a  single  voyage  naval 


1.  Resolves  of  Massachusetts,  October  26, 
1776. 

2  Winsor's  Memorial  History  of  Boston, 
II,  543. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  331 

and  trading  duties.  The  sloop  ''Republic, " 
used  for  a  short  time  as  a  naval  vessel,  was 
taken  into  the  commercial  service.  The 
Massachusetts  Archives  contain  a  list  of 
thirty-two  trading  vessels  owned  or  char 
tered  by  the  Board  of  War.1  These  vessels 
visited  Nantes,  Bilbao,  Martinique,  Guada- 
loupe,  St.  Eustatius,  Cape  Francois,  Balti 
more,  and  the  ports  of  North  and  South  Car 
olina.  They  carried  as  staple  exports,  fish, 
lumber,  and  New  England  rum. 

1.  Massachusetts  Revolutionary  Archives, 
XL,  110-11.  The  influence  on  the  naming 
of  vessels  of  the  friendly  relations  existing 
between  the  United  States  and  France  during 
the  Revolution  early  manifested  itself.  On 
December  27,  1776,  the  Massachusetts  Board 
of  War  changed  the  names  of  its  trading 
vessels  as  follows:  ships,  "Julius  Csesar" 
to  "Bourbon,"  "Venus"  to  "  Versailles," 
and  "Friend"  to  "Paris;"  brigantines, 
"Charming  Sally"  to  "Penet,"  and  "Isabella" 
to ' 'Count D'Estaing. "  The brigantine" Penet," 
which  was  named  for  a  French  merchant  at 
Nantes,  a  member  of  the  firm  of  Pliarne,  Penet 
and  Company,  agents  for  the  United  States, 
has  been  sometimes  confused  with  the  brig 
antine  "Perch,"  which  was  obtained  by  Mas 
sachusetts  in  the  fall  of  1777  for  the  sole  pur 
pose  of  conveying  the  news  of  Burgoyne's  sur 
render  to  the  American  Commissioners  at 
Paris.  The  letters  and  dispatches  were  in 
trusted  with  Jonathan  Loring  Austin,  secre 
tary  of  the  Board  of  War,  who  after  a  passage 
of  thirty  days  reached  the  Commissioners  at 
Passy  on  December  4,  1777. — Board  of  War 
Minutes,  December  27,  1776;  Kale's  Franklin 
in  France,  I,  155. 


332  Naz>\>  of  the  American  Revolution 

As  a  rule  the  work  of  the  Board  of  War  in 
looking  after  its  trading  vessels  exceeded  its 
naval  work.  At  times,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Penobscot  expedition,  the  naval  duties  were 
the  important  ones.  A  week's  work  of  the 
Board  in  behalf  of  its  armed  vessels  shows 
a  curious  mixture  of  orders  on  the  commis 
sary-general  for  clothing  and  provisions, 
and  on  the  state  storekeeper  for  naval 
stores;  and  of  directions  to  the  prize  agents, 
the  agents  for  building  armed  vessels,  and 
the  naval  captains.  The  General  Court  per 
mitted  the  Board  a  rather  free  hand  in  its 
management  of  the  navy.  The  Board  car 
ried  on  a  considerable  correspondence  with 
the  commanders  of  the  armed  vessels.  The 
following  letter  written  to  the  Board  by 
Captain  John  Clouston  of  the  armed  sloop 
" Freedom"  on  May  23,  1777,  from  Paim- 
boeuf,  France,  will  illustrate  this  correspon 
dence  from  the  Captain's  side.  Clouston's 
disregard  of  orthography  and  punctuation 
is  exceptional  even  for  a  Revolutionary 
officer. 

"Gentlemen: 

I  have  the  pleasure  of  Informing 
your  Honours  by  Capt.  Fisk  of  the  'Massa 
chusetts  '  That  on  the  first  Instant  I  arrived 
safe  in  this  Port  after  taking  twelve  Sail  of 
Englis  Vessels  Seven  of  which  I  despatched 
for  Boston  Burnt  three  gave  one  smal  Brigg 
to  our  Prisners  and  one  Retaken  by  the 


A'az'j1  of  the  American  Revolution   333 

'Futereange'  which  Chast  us  fore  Glasses 
and  finding  she  Could  not  Cume  up  with  us 
she  gave  Chase  to  our  Prize  and  toock  her 
in  our  sight— I  have  Cleaned  &  Refited  my 
Vessel  and  Taken  in  forty  Tons  of  War  like 
Stores  and  have  bin  waiting  for  a  wind  to 
go  this  fore  days — Capt.  Fisk  being  short 
of  Provisions  I  have  supplied  him  with 
foreteen  Barels  of  Pork  and  Eleven  of  Beef 
and  have  Suffisantse  for  my  Vessel  left."1 

In  January,  1777,  a  new  sea  establishment 
wras  effected.  Wages  were  generally  raised, 
no  doubt  chiefly  to  meet  their  decrease 
caused  by  the  depreciation  of  the  currency. 
A  captain  was  now  to  receive  a  monthly 
wage  of  £14,  8s.;  a  lieutenant  or  a  master, 
£7,  4s. ;  a  seaman,  £2,  8s. ;  and  a  boy,  £1,  4s. 
The  offices  established  in  the  Massachu 
setts  na\y,  while  not  quite  so  many,  were 
in  general  the  same  as  those  in  the  Conti 
nental  navy.  The  Massachusetts  navy, 
however,  had  the  offices  of  prizemaster, 
pilot,  and  boy,  which  did  not  occur  in  the 
Continental  list.  Following  the  regulations 
of  Congress,  the  General  Court  now  gave 
captors  one-half  of  their  captures.  The  ra 
tions  for  seamen  were  modelled  on  the  Con- 
tinental_  bill  of  fare.2  On  March  21,  1777, 

1.  Board    of    War    Letters,    Massachusetts 
Revolutionary  Archives,  May  23,   1777. 

2.  Massachusetts  Resolves,  January  8,  Jan 
uary    24,    1777.   On    December     6,     1776,    six 
naval  offices  were  established,  which  included  a 
captain's  clerk,   prizemaster,   and  sergeant  of 
marines. 


334  Naz'v  °f  ^ie  American  Revolution 

the  General  Court  adopted  rules  and  regu 
lations  for  its  ships  of  war;  and  it  ordered 
that  they  should  be  read  by  the  command 
ing  officer  of  a  vessel  at  least  once  a  week. 
These  rules,  while  briefer  than  the  Conti 
nental  rules,  naturally  followed  the  same 
general  lines.  They  show  either  the  influ 
ence  of  the  Continental  rules  or  of  the  Eng 
lish  rules  upon  which  the  Continental  rules 
were  based.  The  following  curious  rule  in 
part  parallels  quotations  made  from  the 
Continental  rules  in  Chapter  I: 

"And  if  any  Person  belonging  to  either 
of  such  Vessels  shall  be  convicted  of  Theft, 
Drunkenness,  profane  Cursing,  or  Swearing, 
disregarding  the  Sabbath,  or  using  the 
Name  of  God  lightly,  or  profanely,  or  shall 
be  guilty  of  quarreling  or  fighting,  or  of  any 
reproachful  or  provoking  Language  tending 
to  make  Quarrels,  or  of  any  turbulent  or 
mutinous  Behavior,  or  if  any  Person  shall 
sleep  upon  his  Watch,  or  forsake  his  Station, 
or  shall  in  any  wise  neglect  to  perform  the 
Duty  enjoined  him,  he  shall  he  punished 
for  any  of  the  said  Offences  at  the  Discretion 
of  the  commissioned  Officers  of  such  Vessel, 
or  the  Major  Part  of  them,  according  to  the 
Nature  and  Aggravation  of  the  Offence,  by 
sitting  in  the  Stocks,  or  wearing  a  wooden 
Collar  about  his  Neck,  not  exceeding  4 
Hours,  nor  less  than  one,  or  by  whipping, 
not  exceeding  12  Lashes,  or  by  being  put 
in  Irons  for  so  long  Time  as  the  said  Officers 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  335 

shall  judge  the  Safety  and  well  being  of 
the  Ship  and  Crew  requires,  or  otherwise 
shall  forfeit  to  the  State  not  more  than 
six,  nor  less  than  two  Days  Pay  for  each 
offence."1 

During  every  year  of  the  Revolution  at 
tempts  were  made  to  increase  the  Massa 
chusetts  navy.  In  the  fall  of  1777  the  brig- 
antine  "Hazard"  was  added.  On  August 
6,  1777,  the  General  Court  resolved  that, 
since  the  armed  vessels  at  the  lowest  com 
putation  had  netted  the  state  £55,000,  the 
Board  of  War  should  purchase  or  build  two 
vessels  mounting  28  and  32  guns,  respec 
tively.  In  January,  1778,  it  reduced  the 
sizes  of  these  vessels  almost  one-half;  and 
finally  it  gave  up  building  them.2  In  the 
spring  of  1779  a  prize  of  the  "Hazard,"  the 
brigantine  "Active,"  taken  in  April  off  the 
island  of  St.  Thomas  in  the  West  Indies, 
was  purchased.3  In  April,  1778,  the  Gen- 

1.  Massachusetts  Resolves,  March  21,  1777. 

2.  Ibid.,  August  6,  1777;  January  17,  1778. 

3.  The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  en 
listing  contract  of  the  armed  brig  "Active," 
which    was    signed    by    officers,    seamen,    and 
marines:      "And  we    hereby  bind  ourselves  to 
Submit   to   all   orders  and   regulations   of  the 
Navy  of  the  United  States  of  North  America 
and  this  State  and  faithfully  to  observe  and 
obey  all   such   orders,   and  Commands  as  we 
shall  receive  from  time  to  time  from  our  Su 
perior  Officers  on   board  or  belonging  to   the 
said    Brig     Active    and    on    board     cr/y    Such 
Boats  or  Vessel  or  Vessels  as  foresaid~ 


336  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

eral  Court  resolved  to  build  a  frigate  of  28 
guns,  which  would  carry  two  hundred  offi 
cers  and  men.1  This  vessel  was  built  at 
Newburyport  and  was  named  the  "  Protec 
tor.7'  In  the  fall  of  1779  it  was  nearing 
completion.  The  launching  of  the  "  Pro 
tector/'  which  was  the  largest  ship  in  the 
Massachusetts  navy,  was  a  matter  of  more 
than  usual  local  interest.  Stephen  Cross 
who  was  in  charge  of  the  construction  of  the 
frigate  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Board  of  War 
in  July,  1779,  which  throws  light  upon 
the  minor  naval  duties  of  the  Board. 
Cross's  language  is  somewhat  involved, 
but  his  meaning  is  clear;  it  is  hardly 
necessary  to  say  that  the  " souring"  refers 
to  lemons. 

"  Gentlemen. 

it  being  customary  for  the  owners 
of  Vessels  when  they  are  Launched  to  give 
the  Workmen  something  Better  than  New 
England  Rum  to  drink  &  Likewise  some 
thing  to  Eat  and  also  all  those  Persons  who 

"And  it  is  on  the  part  of  the  State  that  such 
persons  as  by  Land  or  sea  shall  loose  a  Limb 
in  any  Engagement  with  the  Enemies  of  these 
United  States  of  America  or  be  otherwise  so 
disabled  as  to  be  rendered  incapable  of  getting 
a  Lively  Hood  Shall  be  entitled  to  the  same 
Provisions  as  the  disabled  Persons  in  the  Con 
tinental  Service." — Massachusetts  Revolution 
ary  Archives,  XL,  20. 

1.      Massachusetts  Resolves,  April  21,  1778. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  337 

Attend  the  Launching  Expect  to  be  asked 
to  Drink  and  Eat  something  and  Especially 
Publick  Vessells  it  will  be  Expected  that 
something  be  Provided  and  it  is  my  opinion 
about  sixty  Galls  of  West  India  Rum  & 
sugars  for  the  same  &  souring  if  to  be  had 
and  one  Quarter  Cask  of  Wine  and  A  Ham 
per  of  ale  or  Beer  together  with  a  Tierce 
hams  Xeet  Tongs  or  Corn  Beef  will  be  ne 
cessary  to  comply  with  the  Customs  in 
these  Cases."1 

After  August,  1779,  when  the  disaster  on 
the  Penobscot  occurred,  the  naval  duties  of 
the  Board  of  War  were  slight.  For  a  time 
the  " Protector"  was  the  only  vessel  in  the 
navy.  With  the  coming  in  of  a  new  gov 
ernment  under  a  Constitution  on  October 
25,  1780,  there  was  no  longer  much  need  for 
a  Board  of  W"ar.  According  to  the  provi 
sions  of  the  new  Constitution,  the  Governor 
was  commander-in-chief  of  the  navy;  and 
he  was  authorized  to  "  train,  instruct,  exer 
cise,  and  govern  it,"  and  to  call  it  into  serv 
ice  in  time  of  war.  On  February  8,  1781, 
the  Board  of  War  was  discontinued,  and 
Caleb  Davis,  who  was  appointed  Agent  of 
the  Commonwealth,  succeeded  to  its  minis 
terial  duties.2  The  Governor  and  the  Agent 

1.  Massachusetts  Revolutionary  Archives, 
XLIV,  279. 

2.  Massachusetts    Resolves,     February    8, 
1781.      Three  members  of  the   Board  of   War 
and  two  clerks  were  continued  for  a  few  months 
to  settle  the  accounts  of  the  Board. 


338  Nai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

now  shared  the  naval  duties.  The  Governor 
commissioned  officers,  issued  orders  to  the 
naval  commanders,  and  was  responsible 
to  the  General  Court;  the  Agent  had  direct 
oversight  of  the  fitting  out  of  vessels,  the 
selling  of  prizes,  and  was  responsible  to  the 
Governor.  As  the  Revolution  spent  itself 
the  simplification  of  the  administrative  ma 
chinery  of  the  state  continued.  On  Janu 
ary  1,  1783,  the  Agent  was  discontinued. 
His  naval  duties  fell  to  the  Commissary- 
General.1 

During  each  year  from  1780  to  1783  the 
General  Court  made  one  or  more  attempts 
to  increase  the  naval  force  of  the  state.     It 
was  spurred  to  action  by  the  ravages  of  the 
British  cruisers  on  the  Eastern  Coast.     On 
March  21,  1780,  two  armed  vessels  mount 
ing  not  less  than  ten  or  more  than  fourteen 
4's  or  6's  were  ordered.     The  expense  in 
curred  was  to  be  met  by  the  sale  of  the  "  Ris 
ing  Empire "  and  of  the  confiscated  estates 
of   Loyalists,    and   from   the   rents   of   the 
property  of  absentees.     On  March  6,  1781, 
the  Agent  was  directed  to  obtain  a  small 
vessel  of  eight  to  twelve  guns  to  serve  as  a 
tender  for  the  "Mars;"  and  on  April  23,  he 
was  ordered  to  procure  by  hire  or  purchase 
two  small  craft  to  be  employed  as  "guard a 
coasta."     On  November  12,  1782,  a  com 
mittee  was  appointed  to  purchase  a^  vessel 
of  twelve  or  sixteen  guns  to  be  used  in  pro- 
1.    Massachusetts  Resolves,  October  4,  1782. 


Naz'y  of  the  American  Revolution   339 

tecting  the  coast.  On  March  26,  1783,  the 
Commissary-General  was  ordered  to  obtain 
a  small  vessel  and  a  whale  boat  to  cruise 
against  the  enemy  in  Casco  Bay  and  along 
the  Eastern  Shore.1  As  the  result  of  these 
resolutions,  four  armed  vessels  were  added 
to  the  navy:  in  the  spring  of  1780  the 
"Mars;"  in  the  summer  of  1781,  the  " De 
fence;''  in  the  winter  of  1781-1782,  the 
"Tartar/7  which  was  built  by  the  state;  and 
in  the  spring  of  1782,  the  "Winthrop." 

Private  naval  enterprise  throughout  the 
Revolution  was  exceedingly  active  in  Mas 
sachusetts.  In  1775,  some  months  before 
the  General  Court  granted  letters  of  marque, 
Massachusetts  citizens,  unauthorized,  were 
capturing  the  vessels  of  the  enemy.  Scarce 
ly  a  fortnight  after  the  battles  of  Lexington 
and  Concord  men  from  New  Bedford  and 
Dartmouth  fitted  out  a  vessel  and  attacked 
and  cut  out  from  a  harbor  in  Martha's  Vine 
yard  a  prize  of  the  British  sloop  of  war 
"Falcon,"  16.  This  act  was  called  forth  by 
the  captures  which  the  " Falcon"  had  made 
from  the  people  of  Buzzard's  Bay.  On 
June  12,  1775,  the  inhabitants  of  Machias, 
Maine,  had  captured  the  King's  sloop  "Mar- 
garetta,"  Lieutenant  Moore,  after  mortally 
wounding  the  commander  and  inflicting  a 
loss  of  fourteen  men.  Still  other  British 


1.  Massachusetts  Resolves,  March  21,  1780; 
February  19,  March  6,  April  23,  1781;  Novem 
ber  12,  1782;  March  26,  1783. 


34-O  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

vessels  were  captured  off  the  coast  of  Maine 
during  the  summer  of  1775.1 

With  the  act  of  November  1,  1775,  grant 
ing  to  the  Council  the  power  to  issue  letters  of 
marque  and  reprisal,  all  such  private  enter 
prises  as  the  above,  when  done  under  the 
authority  of  a  commission,  were  legal.  It 
does  not  appear  however  that  Massachusetts 
granted  many  commissions  until  the  second 
half  of  1776.  In  1777  she  granted  96  com 
missions.  The  best  year  was  1779  when  she 
issued  222  commissions;  the  year  1781  with 
216  commissions  was  not  far  behind.  The 
total  number  of  commissions  issued  by  Mas 
sachusetts  for  the  years  1777  to  1783  was 
998. 2  In  1779  one  hundred  and  eighty-four 
prizes  captured  by  privateers  were  libelled 
in  the  Massachusetts  prize  courts.3  The 
privateering  industry  for  this  year  was  very 
active.  The  following  is  an  extract  from  a 
letter  dated  May  16,  1779,  written  from  a 
Massachusetts  seaport: 

"Privateering  was  never  more  in  vogue 
than  at  present;  two  or  three  privateers  sail 
every  week  from  this  port,  and  men  seem 


1.  Winsor,  Narrative  and  Critical  History, 
VI,   564;  Maclay,   History  of  American  Priva 
teering,  52-60. 

2.  Massachusetts  Revolutionary  Archives. 
The  total  numbers  of  privateering  commissions 
always  exceed    the  total  numbers  of   vessels, 
as  the  same  vessels  were  often  commissioned 
two  or  more  times. 

3.  Boston  Gazette  for  1779. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  341 

as  plenty  as  grasshoppers  in  the  field;  no 
vessel  being  detained  an  hour  for  want  of 
them.  We  have  near  1,000  prisoners  on 
board  the  guard-ships  in  Boston,  and  a  great 
balance  due  us  from  the  enemy.  Cruisers 
from  New  York,  &c  are  daily  brought  in, 
and  often  by  vessels  of  inferior  force;  our 
privateers-men  being  as  confident  of  victory, 
when  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  Eng 
lish,  as  these  were  of  gaining  it  of  the  French 
in  the  last  war."1 

The  rivalry  between  the  state  service  and 
the  privateers  for  seamen  was  exceedingly  ac 
tive.  The  latter  service  was  always  the  more 
popular.  In  1779  the  Council  recommended 
that  some  effectual  measures  be  taken  to 
prevent  the  owners  of  private  ships  of  war 
and  merchantmen  from  seducing  seamen 
away  that  were  engaged  in  the  public  service. 
It  declared  that  proper  encouragement  must 
be  given  to  state  officers  and  seamen,  and 
that  commanders  must  have  the  aid  of  the 
government  in  manning  their  vessels,  "or 
they  will  lie  by  the  Walls  and  so  be  of  little 
or  no  service."2  In  1778  the  General  Court 
found  some  difficulty  in  securing  com 
manders. 

The  movements  of  the  armed  vessels  of 
the  Massachusetts  navy  are  quite  similar  to 
the  movements  of  the  naval  vessels  of  Con- 


1.  Virginia  Gazette,  June  19,  1779. 

2.  Journals  of   House   of   Representatives, 
January  6,  1779. 


342  -Vary  of  the  American  Revolution 

gress.1  The  smaller  fleet  like  the  larger 
cruised  in  European  waters,  in  the  region 
of  the  West  Indies,  and  to  the  eastward  of 
the  Bermudas  in  the  path  of  the  richly-laden 
West  Indiamen.  The  Massachusetts  ves 
sels,  however,  cruised  more  frequently  near 
er  home.  About  the  first  of  June,  1779,  the 
"Hazard"  and  ' Tyrannicide"  were  in  the 
region  of  Nantucket.  After  1779  the  vessels 
were  frequently  ordered  to  protect  the 

1.  The  vessels  in  the  Massachusetts  navy 
with  the  approximate  periods  of  their  service 
were  as  follows:  Sloop  "Machias  Liberty," 
1775-1776;  schooner  "Diligent,"  1775-1776; 
brigantine  (at  first  a  sloop)  "^Tyrannicide," 
1776-1779;  brigantine  "  Rising  Empire,"  1776- 
1777;  brigantine  "Independence,"  1776-1777; 
sloop  "Reptiblic,"  1776-1777;  sloop  "Free 
dom,"  1776-1777;  brigantine  "Massachu 
setts,"  1776- 1778;  brigantine  "Hazard,"  1777- 
1779;  brigantine  "Active,"  1779;  frigate 
"Protector,"  1779-1781;  ship  "Mars,"  1780- 
1781;  sloop  "Defence,"  1781;  ship  "Tartar," 
1782-1783;  sloop  "Winthrop,"  1782-1783; 
and  galley  "Lincoln,"  1779-1781.  Most  of 
these  vessels  mounted  from  ten  to  twenty 
guns,  4's  and  6's.  The  only  larger  vessel  was 
the  "Protector,"  26.  Vessels  such  as  the 
"Tyrannicide,"  "Hazard,"  and  "Winthrop" 
carried  about  125  officers  and  men.  The  fol 
lowing  captains  or  commanders  were  the  chief 
officers  in  the  Massachusetts  navy:  Jeremiah 
O'Brian,  John  Lambert,  John  Fisk,  John  Fos 
ter  Williams,  John  Clouston,  Jonathan  Hara- 
den,  Daniel  Souther,  Simeon  Samson,  Richard 
Welden,  Allen  Hallet,  James  Nevens,  John 
Cathcart  and  George  Little.  Massachusetts 
did  not  establish  the  rank  of  commodore. 


Nary  of  the  American  Revolution  343 

Eastern  Coast.  In  the  spring  of  1777  the 
"Tyrannicide,  "  Captain  Jonathan  Haraden, 
"Massachusetts,"  Captain  John  Fisk,  and 
"Freedom,"  Captain  John  Clouston,  cruised 
eastward  as  far  as  the  coasts  of  France  and 
Spain,  capturing  some  twenty-five  prizes, 
many  of  which  however, were  recaptured  by 
the  British.1  This  was  a  most  fortunate 
venture,  for  all  told  one  can  not  now  count 
more  than  seventy  prizes  captured  by  the 
Massachusetts  navy.  In  the  summer  of 
1780  the  Board  of  War  turned  over  the 
"Mars,"  Captain  Simeon  Samson,  to  the 
Massachusetts  Committee  for  Foreign  Af 
fairs  which  sent  her  to  France  and  Holland 
for  supplies. 


1.  These  three  vessels  captured  the  four 
prizes  mentioned  in  the  following  advertise 
ment,  which  appeared  in  the  Continental  Jour 
nal  and  Weekly  Advertiser  for  July  3,  1777,  a 
paper  published  at  Boston.  The  advertise 
ment  is  introduced  here  to  illustrate  the  final 
disposition  of  prize  vessels: 

"To  be  sold  by  Public  Auction  at  eleven 
o'clock  on  Wednesday  the  23rd  of  July  in 
stant  at  Mr.  Tileston's  wharf  in  Boston  the 
following  prizes  with  their  appurtenances. 

"The    Ship   Lonsdale,         about  250  tons 
Brig  Britannia,       about  140      "  . 
Brig   Penelope,        about  130      " 
Snow  Sally,  about  180      " 

"The  above  prizes  lay  at  Tileston's  wharf. 
They  are  all  good  vessels  and  well  found.  In 
ventories  to  be  seen  at  the  sheriff's  office 
Cornhill,  and  at  the  place  of  sale. 

"W.  Greenleaf,  Sheriff." 


3/|]   Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

The  state  vessels  were  at  times  joined  in 
cruises  with  privateers  or  with  Continental 
vessels ;  and  enterprises  were  concerted  with 
all  three  classes  of  armed  craft.  In  April, 
1777,  the  state  took  into  its  service  for  a 
month  nine  privateers,  mounting  130 
guns  and  carrying  1,030  men,  to  cruise 
with  the  Continental  frigate  "Hancock" 
and  "Boston"  after  the  British  frigate  "Mil- 
ford"  which  had  been  especially  annoying 
and  destructive  to  the  trade  of  the  state.1 
In  February,  1781,  the  "Protector"  was 
cruising  with  the  Continental  frigate 
"Deane"  thirty  leagues  windward  of  An 
tigua.  In  March,  1781,  the  Admiral  of  the 
French  fleet  at  Newport  was  requested  to 
send  two  French  ships  to  cruise  with  the 
"Mars"  on  the  Eastern  shore;  and  a  bounty 
was  offered  to  privateersmen  who  would 
cruise  against  the  "worthless  banditti"  in 
that  region.2 

The  capture  of  a  prize  often  amounted  to 
little  more  than  the  chasing  of  a  merchant 
man  and  the  firing  of  a  few  shots  as  a  sig 
nal  for  surrender.  At  times  however  when 
the  merchantman  was  armed,  or  when  the 
enemy 's  vessel  happened  to  be  a  privateer, 
the  action  was  more  serious.  One  of  the 
most  severe  single  engagements  in  which  a 


1.  Massachusetts  Resolves,  April  26,  1777; 
Massachusetts     Revolutionary   Archives,   XL, 
29,  55. 

2.  Massachusetts  Resolves,  March  2,  1781. 


Nai'\  of  the  American  Revolution   345 

Massachusetts  vessel  was  concerned  was 
that  between  the  "Protector,"  26,  Captain 
John  Foster  Williams,  and  the  privateer 
frigate  "Admiral  Duff, "  32,  Captain  Stran 
ger.  It  occurred  on  June  9,  1780,  in  lati 
tude  42°  N.  and  longitude  47°  W.  The  en 
gagement  was  heavy  for  an  hour  and  a  half 
when  the  "Admiral  Duff,"  having  caught 
fire,  blew  up;  all  on  board  were  lost  except 
fifty-five  men  who  were  picked  up  by  the 
"Protector."  The  American  vessel  lost  six 
men.1  The  following  brief  account  of  one 
of  these  minor  engagements,  told  in  the  sim 
ple  and  direct  language  of  the  Massachu 
setts  captain  who  took  part  in  it,  is  taken 
from  a  letter  of  Captain  Allen  Hallet  to  the 
Board  of  War.  It  is  dated  at  sea  on 
board  the  "Tyrannicide,"  latitude  28°  N., 
longitude  68°  W.,  March  31,  1779.  This  sim 
ple  and  vivid  description  shows  with  clear 
ness  the  character  of  the  minor  engagements 
of  the  Revolution. 

"I  have  the  pleasure  of  sending  this  to 
you  by  Mr.  John  Blanch  who  goes  prize- 
master  of  my  Prize,  the  Privateer  Brig  Re 
venge,  lately  commanded  by  Capt.  Robert 
Fendall  belonging  to  Grenada,  but  last  from 
Jamaica,  mounting  14  Carriage  Guns,  6  &  4 
pounders,  4  swivels  &  2  Cohorns,  &  sixty 
ablebodied  Men,  which  I  took  after  a  very 
smart  &  Bloody  Engagement,  in  which  they 
had  8  men  killed  &  fourteen  wounded,  the 
~T  Boston  Gazette,  July  24,  1780. 


346  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

Vessell  cut  very  much  to  pieces  by  my  Shott, 
so  that  they  had  no  command  of  her  at  all— 
amongst  the  killed  was  the  1st  Lieut.  & 
one  Quarter  Mr. — amongst  the  wounded  is 
the  Capt.  2nd.  Lieut.  &  Gunner — I  cap 
tured  her  as  follows:  on  the  29  Inst.  at  4 
P  M.  I  made  her  about  4  leagues  to  wind 
ward  coming  down  upon  us,  upon  which  I 
cleared  the  Ship  and  got  all  hands  to  Quar 
ter,  ready  for  an  Engagement,  I  stood  close 
upon  the  Wind  waiting  for  her,  about  half 
past  six  PM.  she  came  up  with  me,  and 
hailed  me;ask'd  me  where  I  was  from,  I  told 
them  I  was  from  Boston  &  asked  where  they 
were  from,  they  said  from  Jamaica  &  that 
they  were  a  British  Cruizer,  I  immediately 
told  them  I  was  an  American  Cruizer,  upon 
which  they  ordered  me  to  Strike,  &  seeing 
I  did  not  intend  to  gratify  their  desires, 
they  rang'd  up  under  my  Lee  &  gave  me 
a  Broadside,  I  immediately  re  turn' d  the 
Compliment  &  dropping  a  Stern,  I  got  under 
their  Lee  and  then  pour'd  Broadsides  into 
her  from  below  and  out  of  the  Tops,  so 
fast  &  so  well  directed  that  in  one  hour  & 
a  Quarter  we  dismantled  two  of  her  Guns 
&  drove  them  from  their  Quarters  &  com- 
pelFd  them  to  Strike  their  Colors,  during 
the  whole  Engagement  we  were  not  at  any 
one  time  more  than  half  Pistol  Shott  dis 
tant  &  some  part  of  the  Time  our  Yards 
were  lock'd  with  theirs — I  had  Eight  men 
wounded  only  two  of  which  are  Bad — 


Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution   347 

amongst  the  wounded  are  my  first  Lieut. 
&  Master,  I  intended  to  man  her  and  keep 
her  as  a  Consort  during  the  Cruize,  but 
having  twenty  wounded  Men  on  board,  of 
my  own  men  &  prisoners  I  thought  it  Best 
to  send  her  home,  with  all  the  wounded 
men  on  board  under  the  Care  of  the  Sur 
geons  Mate."1 

By  far  the  largest  naval  undertaking  of 
the  Revolution  made  by  the  Americans  was 
the  Penobscot  Expedition.  Until  1779  the 
general  policy  of  those  who  managed  the 
fleet  of  Massachusetts  was  to  send  its  ves 
sels  cruising  against  the  British  transports, 
merchantmen,  and  small  privateers,  and  to 
leave  the  coast  to  be  defended  by  the  sea- 
coast  establishment  and  by  local  forces. 
In  August,  1777,  the  Council  agreed  with 
this  policy  for  it  then  spoke  of  the  Conti 
nental  vessels,  the  state  vessels,  and  the 
privateers  as  " improper"  to  be  employed 
in  clearing  the  coasts  of  these  "vermin."2 
In  April,  1779,  however,  it  disapproved  this 
policy.  It  now  in  a  message  to  the  House 
submitted  whether,  instead  of  sending  the 
armed  vessels  on  long  cruises  after  prizes, 
it  would  not  have  been  vastly  more  to  the 
advantage  and  profit  of  the  state  to  have 
employed  them  cruising  on  the  coast  of 
Massachusetts  for  the  protection  of  trade 

1.  Massachusetts  Revolutionary  Archives. 
XLIV,  408. 

2,  Ibid.,  268. 


348  Nary  of  flic  American  Revolution 

and  the  defence  of  harbors  and  seacoast, 
"which  have  been  left  in  such  an  un 
guarded  and  defenceless  Situation  that 
where  we  have  taken  one  Vessel  of  the 
Enemy  their  small  privateers  out  of  New 
York  have  taken  ten  from  us."1  It  would 
seem  that  the  Board  of  War  was  right  in 
employing  its  fleet  in  prize-getting  rather 
than  in  defensive  warfare.  The  capturing 
of  small  privateers  and  of  merchantmen 
were  the  only  enterprises  for  which  the  Rev 
olutionary  fleets  were  adapted.  Those  ves 
sels  that  cruised  continually  near  the  Ameri 
can  coast,  sooner  or  later,  fell  foul  of  the 
stouter  and  better  armed  ships  of  the  enemy. 
Moreover,  the  Board  of  War,  had  it  not  re 
sponded  to  the  commercial  spirit  of  the 
times,  would  have  been  compelled  to  adopt 
the  methods  of  the  privateers,  did  it  wish 
to  succeed  in  its  competition  with  them  for 
seamen. 

During  the  first  half  of  1779  the  British 
vessels  were  very  destructive  to  the  trade 
and  shipping  of  Massachusetts  and  New 
Hampshire.  On  June  9,  eight  hun 
dred  of  the  enemy,  encouraged  by  certain 
Tories  in  Maine,  effected  a  lodgment  on  the 
Maine  coast  at  a  place  called  Bagaduce,  now 
Castine,  near  the  mouth  of  the  Penobscot 
river.2  This  made  a  fine  vantage-point  as 

1.  Journals  of  Massachusetts  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,  April  7,  1779. 

2.  Amory's Sullivan,  II,  376-78,  James  Sulli- 


Nary  of  the  American  Revolution  349 

a  base  for  naval  operations.  The  appeal 
for  naval  protection  which  the  inhabitants 
of  Massachusetts  now  made  upon  her  was 
a  strong  one.  Towards  the  close  of  June 
the  Massachusetts  government  began  con 
certing  with  the  Continental  Navy  Board 
at  Boston  and  with  the  government  of  New 
Hampshire  an  expedition  to  capture  and 
destroy  this  British  station.  Samuel  Ad 
ams,  who  had  recently  retired  from  the 
chairmanship  of  the  Marine  Committee  of 
Congress  and  had  returned  to  Boston,  fur 
thered  the  enterprise.  To  the  fleet  which 
was  now  formed,  New  Hampshire  contrib 
uted  the  "Hampden,"  22;  the  Navy  Board 
at  Boston,  the  Continental  vessels,  "War 
ren,"  32,  "  Providence/7  12,  and  "Diligent," 
12;  and  Massachusetts,  the  three  state  brig- 
antines,  "Tyrannicide,"  16,  "Hazard,"  14, 
and  "Active,"  14,  together  with  thirteen 
privateers,  which  were  temporarily  taken 
into  the  state  service.  These  twenty  armed 
vessels  mounted  in  all  324  guns,  and  were 

van  to  John  Sullivan,  August  30,  1779.  James 
Sullivan  says  that,  on  the  occupation  of  Baga- 
duce  by  the  British,  Boston  and  neighboring 
seaports  were  greatly  alarmed  at  the  pros 
pect  of  a  scarcity  of  wood;  and  that  men  who 
had  made  their  fortunes  by  war,  for  once 
and  for  a  moment,  felt  a  public  spirit,  and 
freely  offered  their  ships  to  the  government. 
They  were  careful  to  have  them  appraised 
and  insured  by  the  state,  which  of  course 
suffered  the  loss  on  the  failure  of  the  expedi 
tion. 


350  Xaz'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

manned  by  more  than  2,000  men.  Besides 
the  armed  fleet  there  were  twenty  trans 
ports  which  carried  upwards  of  1,000  state 
militia.  The  naval  forces  were  under  the 
command  of  Captain  Dudley  Saltonstall  of 
the  Continental  navy;  and  the  troops  were 
commanded  by  Brigadier-General  Solomon 
Lovell  of  the  state  military  forces  of  Massa 
chusetts.  Paul  Revere  was  Chief  of  Ar 
tillery  with  the  rank  of  Lieutenant-Colonel. 
The  assembling,  manning,  provisioning, 
and  fitting  of  so  many  vessels  greatly  taxed 
the  resources  of  Massachusetts.  The  fleet 
left  Boston  on  July  19,  and  during  the  last 
days  of  the  month  appeared  off  the  Penob- 
scot,  and  attacked  Bagaduce  with  only  par 
tial  success,  since  it  failed  to  take  the  main 
fort.  Before  a  second  attempt  was  made, 
a  British  fleet  from  New  York  under  the 
command  of  Sir  George  Collier,  who  had  re 
ceived  news  of  the  expedition,  appeared  in 
the  Penobscot.  The  British  fleet  consisted 
of  the  "Raisonnable,"  64;  "Blonde,"  and 
"Virginia,"  32's;  "  Greyhound,"  "  Camilla," 
and  "Gallatea,"  20's;  and  "Otter,"  14;  to 
gether  with  three  small  vessels  at  the  gar 
rison,  the  "Nautilus,"  16,  "Albany,"  14, 
and  "North,"  14.  The  British  fleet  mount 
ed  248  guns  and  carried  more  than  1,600 
men.  In  number  of  guns  and  men  the  ad 
vantage  lay  with  the  Americans,  but  in 
weight  of  metal  and  tonnage  it  was  probably 
with  the  British.  On  the  morning  of  Au- 


Xat'y  of  the  American  Revolution   351 

gust  14  the  British  fleet  came  in  sight  of  the 
American.  The  two  fleets  were  barely  in 
range  of  each  other's  guns  when  the  Ameri 
cans  were  seized  with  a  panic,  and  fled  with 
their  vessels  helter  skelter  up  the  river,  pur 
sued  by  the  British.  The  Americans  offered 
almost  no  resistance  whatever,  but  ran  their 
ships  ashore,  set  fire  to  them,  and  escaped 
afoot,  when  not  too  closely  pursued.  With 
the  exception  of  two  or  three  vessels  which 
were  captured,  the  American  fleet  wras  an 
nihilated.  The  British  lost  13  men;  the 
American  loss  has  been  placed  at  474  men. 
The  larger  part  of  the  American  sailors  and 
soldiers  returned  by  woods  to  New  Hamp 
shire  and  Massachusetts. 

The  total  cost  of  this  expedition  to  Massa 
chusetts  as  calculated  by  the  Board  of  War 
was  £1,739,175.  The  larger  part  of  this 
sum,  £1,390,200,  was  charged  t@  the  account 
of  the  navy.  It  suffered  the  loss  of  three 
state  armed  vessels  and  a  victualer,  nine 
privateers,  and  twenty  transports.  Among 
the  twenty  transports,  with  possibly  one  ex 
ception,  was  the  whole  trading  fleet  of  the 
state.  Soon  after  the  disaster  a  joint  com 
mittee  of  the  Massachusetts  House  of  Rep 
resentatives  and  Council  with  Artemas  Ward 
as  president,  held  an  inquiry  and  made  a 
report  on  the  causes  of  the  failure  of  the 
expedition.  In  answer  to  the  question, 
"What  appears  the  principal  reason  of  the 
failure,"  the  committee  decided  unani- 


352  ArflT.'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

mously,  "want  of  proper  Spirit  and  Energy 
on  the  part  of  the  Commodore."  A  court- 
martial,  which  was  held  on  the  frigate 
"Deane"  in  Boston  harbor  about  the  first 
of  October,  decided  against  Captain  Salton- 
stall;  and  he  was  dismissed  from  the  navy. 
Rarely  has  a  more  ignominious  military 
operation  been  made  by  Americans  than 
the  Penobscot  expedition.  A  New  Eng- 
lander  with  some  justice  has  likened  it  to 
Hull's  surrender  at  Detroit.  Had  it  been 
successful,  it  would  not  have  been  worth 
the  effort  it  cost.  Its  object  had  no  national 
significance;  it  was  an  eccentric  operation. 
"Bad  in  conception,  bad  in  preparation, 
bad  in  execution,  it  naturally  ended  in  dis 
aster  and  disgrace."1 

Besides  the  "Tyrannicide,"  "Hazard/' 
and  "Active"  the  Massachusetts  navy  lost 
to  the  enemy  at  least  three  other  vessels. 
Towards  the  close  of  1777  the  British  cap 
tured  the  "Freedom"  and  "Independence." 
On  May  5,  1781,  His  Majesty's  ships  "Roe 
buck,"  44,  and  "Medea,"  28,  captured  the 


1.  Massachusetts  Revolutionary  Archives, 
CXLV,  199-203,  350;  Weymouth  Historical  So 
ciety  Publications,  I,  chapters  VII-X,  gives  the 
best  account  of  the  Penobscot  expedition, 
also  contains  the  Original  Journal  of  General 
Solomon  Lovell  kept  on  the  expedition ;  Massa 
chusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  7th, 
II,  430;  Proceedings  of  Massachusetts  Histori 
cal  Society,  2nd,  XII,  201-202;  Clowes,  Royal 
Navy,  IV,  28-29. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  353 

"  Protector/'  26,  with  more  than  one  Hun 
dred  and  thirty  men  on  board.1  She  was 
added  to  the  Royal  Navy  as  the  "Hussar." 
In  the  latter  half  of  1782  Captain  George 
Little  in  the  "Winthrop"  cruised  on  the 
Eastern  Coast,  and  captured  and  sent  into 
Boston  "nearly  the  whole  of  the  arm'd 
force  they  possessed  at  Penobscot;"  he  thus 
in  part  retrieved  the  naval  honor  of  his 
state.2  Acting  under  orders  of  Governor 
Hancock,  Little  in  the  "Winthrop"  made 
the  last  cruise  of  the  Massachusetts  navy, 
when  in  the  winter  of  1782-1783  he  visited 
Martinique.  On  his  return,  he  was  fitting 
for  a  cruise  on  the  Eastern  Coast,  when 
about  April  1  news  of  permanent  peace  ar 
rived.  On  June  4,  1783,  the  Commissary- 
General  was  directed  to  sell  the  " Winthrop/7 
the  last  vessel  in  the  navy.  The  "Tartar" 
had  been  sold  during  the  past  winter.3 
Captain  Little's  accounts  were  being  settled 
in  March,  1785. 

1.  Massachusetts  Revolutionary  Archives, 
XXXIX,  45. 

2.  Ibid.,  CL VIII,  274,  Message  of  Governor 
Hancock   to    House   of    Representatives,    Feb 
ruary  6,  1783. 

3.  Massachusetts   Resolves,   June   4,    1783. 
Those  naval  vessels  which  were  not  captured, 
destroyed,    or    sold,    were    either   returned    to 
their  owners,     or    were    thrown  out    of  com 
mission  and  employed  in  other  services. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  NAVY  OF  CONNECTICUT 

An  introductory  word  about  the  govern 
ment  of  Connecticut  during  the  Revolution 
may  not  be  amiss.  Speaking  generally,  the 
power  of  legislation  was  vested  in  the  Gov 
ernor,  Council,  and  House  of  Representa 
tives  ;  and  of  administration  in  the  Governor 
and  Council  of  Safety.1  The  Legislature  or 
General  Assembly  met  two  or  three  times  a 
year.  Jonathan  Trumbull,  the  only  Pro 
vincial  governor  in  the  thirteen  colonies  who 
was  not  displaced  by  the  dominance  of  the 
Patriot  party,  was  governor  of  Connecticut 
throughout  the  Revolution.  On  October 
10,  1776,  Connecticut,  by  a  resolution  of  the 
General  Assembly,  which  made  no  change 
in  the  frame- work  of  the  government,  ceased 
to  be  a  colony  and  became  a  state.  The 
Council  of  Safety,  appointed  to  assist  the 
Governor  in  administration,  was  elected  each 
year.  Its  membership  varied  in  numbers; 
in  1775  there  were  five  members;  in  1779, 
twenty.  About  half  of  its  members  attend- 

1.  One  must  distinguish  between  the 
Council  and  Council  of  Safety.  A  few  mem 
bers  were  common  to  both  bodies. 


Nary  of  the  American  Revolution   355 

ed  its  meetings,  which  were  principally  held 
at  Hartford,  and  at  Lebanon,  the  home  of 
Governor  Trumbull.  Roger  Sherman,  Oli 
ver  Ellsworth,  and  other  leaders  of  the  Revo 
lution  in  Connecticut  served  in  the  Council 
of  Safety. 

Connecticut's  first  step  towards  obtaining 
a  naval  armament  was  made  early  in  July, 
1775,  when  her  General  Assembly  resolved  to 
fit  out  and  arm  two  vessels  of  suitable  bur 
den  for  the  defence  of  the  seacoasts  of  the 
colony,  and  authorized  the  Governor  and 
Council  to  procure,  furnish,  and  employ  the 
two  vessels.1  On  July  24,  1775,  the  Gover 
nor  and  Council  of  Safety  thoroughly  con 
sidered  the  "affair  of  the  two  armed  ves 
sels;"  and  letters  relating  thereto  from  men 
in  New  Haven,  Middletown,  Wethersfield, 
and  other  towns  were  read.  Captain  John 
Deshon  and  Nathaniel  Shaw,  jr.,  both  of 
New  London,  and  Captain  Giles  Hall  of 
Norwich  attended  the  meeting  and  offered 
information  and  advice.  A  committee  of 
four,  consisting  of  two  members  of  the 
Council  of  Safety  together  with  Deshon  and 
Hall,  was  appointed  to  visit  the  principal 
ports  of  the  colony  and  ascertain  the  terms 

1.  Colonial  Records  of  Connecticut,  XV, 
99-100.  The  published  Colonial  and  State 
Records  of  Connecticut  to  which  I  refer,  con 
sist  of  two  parts,  the  Records  of  the  General 
Assembly,  and  the  Jounrals  of  the  Council  of 
Safety.  The  reader  can  easily  tell  from  the 
context  to  which  part  each  reference  refers. 


356  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

upon  which  vessels,  officers,  and  men  might 
be  had.1 

On  August  2  this  committee  reported  that 
sundry  vessels  could  be  obtained  at  reason 
able  prices,  but  that  none  of  them  were  per 
fectly  adapted  for  vessels  of  war.  The  com 
mittee  said  that  the  people  of  the  colony 
disagreed  as  to  the  propriety  of  arming  ves 
sels;  many  thought  that  it  would  be  impos 
sible  for  America  to  compare  by  sea  with  the 
British,  and  that  to  attempt  it  would  pro 
voke  insult  and  would  expose  the  seacoast 
and  trade  of  Connecticut  to  increased  dan 
ger;  but  others  thought  that  a  naval  arma 
ment  would  be  an  advantage,  and  would 
afford  protection  to  the  colony.  The  Gov 
ernor  and  Council  of  Safety  expressed  a 
doubt  whether  they  had  a  right  to  suspend 
the  measure  of  the  General  Assembly,  even 
if  they  should  think  it  advisable.  They  now 
resolved  to  fit  out  an  armed  vessel,  the  brig 
"Minerva,"  of  about  108  tons  burden,  be 
longing  to  Captain  William  Griswold  of 
Wethersfield;  and  to  obtain  a  smaller  and 
faster  vessel  of  some  twenty-five  tons  burden 
to  be  employed  as  a  "spy  vessel,  to  run  and 
course  from  place  to  place,  to  discover  the 
enemy,  and  carry  intelligence."  Captain 
Samuel  Niles  of  Norwich  was  appointed 
captain  of  the  spy-vessel;  and  Benjamin 
Huntington  of  the  Council  of  Safety  and 

1.  Colonial  Records  of  Connecticut,  XV, 
108,  109. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   357 

John  Deshon  were  appointed  a  committee  to 
obtain,  fit  out,  and  furnish  it.1 

On  August  3  the  Governor  and  Council  of 
Safety  appointed  Captain  Giles  Hall  of  Nor 
wich  captain  and  commander  of  the  "  Min 
erva.  "  A  pay-table  and  a  small  list  of 
officers  were  now  established.  Captain  Hall 
was  to  receive  a  monthly  salary  of  £7;  the 
first  lieutenant,  £5;  the  second  lieutenant, 
and  master,  £4  each;  seamen,  £2,  5s.;  and 
marines,  £2.  Hall  was  instructed  to  raise 
forty  seamen  and  forty  marines.2 

When  the  committee  for  obtaining  the 
spy- vessel  reported  on  August  14,  the  Gov 
ernor  and  Council  of  Safety  resolved  to  buy 
the  schooner  "Britannia,"  belonging  at 
Stonington,  at  a  price  not  to  exceed  £200. 
Robert  Niles  was  made  captain  of  the  "  Spy/' 
the  name  now  given  to  the  schooner,  in 
place  of  Samuel  Niles.3  The  "Spy"  was 
cruising  early  in  October,  1775,  when  she 
recaptured  and  brought  into  New  London 
a  large  ship  containing  eight  thousand  bush 
els  of  wheat/  the  first  capture  of  the  Con 
necticut  navy. 

By  October  the  "Minerva"  was  ready  for 
sea,  and  on  the  ninth  of  this  month,  in  re 
sponse  to  a  request  of  the  Continental  Con 
gress,  the  Governor  and  Council  of  Safety 

1.  Colonial   Records   of    Connecticut,   XV, 
109,  110. 

2.  Ibid.,  111-13. 

3.  Ibid.,  117.  . 

4.  Connecticut  Gazette,  October  13,  1775. 


358  Xavy  of  the  American  Revolution 

ordered  this  vessel  to  intercept  two  trans 
ports  bound  from  England  for  Quebec.1 
This  detail  was  not  carried  out  by  the  "  Min 
erva"  for  the  very  sufficient  reason  "that 
all  the  hands  or  soldiers  and  marines  on 
board,  except  about  10  or  12,  being  duly 
noticed  of  said  orders,  utterly  declined  and 
refused  to  obey  the  same  and  perform  said 
cruise,"  which  through  their  disobedience 
wholly  failed.2  The  Governor  and  Council 
of  Safety  ordered  the  mutinous  men  dis 
charged,  and  others  enlisted  in  their  places; 
but  before  the  "Minerva"  was  again  ready 
for  service,  the  General  Assembly  in  Decem 
ber  directed  Captain  Hall  to  return  his  ves 
sel  to  its  owner  and  dismiss  his  crew. 

In  December,  1775,  the  General  Assembly 
deciding  to  increase  the  naval  forces  of  the 
colony,  appointed  Colonel  David  Waterbury 
of  Stamford  and  Captain  Isaac  Sears  of  New 
Haven  to  examine  a  certain  brigantine  at 
Greenwich  with  a  view  to  ascertaining  its 
fitness  for  the  naval  service;  and  it  resolved 
to  build  or  otherwise  procure  an  additional 
armed  ship  and  four  row-galleys  "for  the 
defence  of  this  and  the  neighboring  colonies." 
Waterbury  and  Sears  reported  that  the 
Greenwich  brigantine  was  a  new  vessel  which 
had  made  one  voyage  to  the  West  Indies, 


1.  See  Chapter  I,  Naval  Committee,  page 
35;  Colonial  Records  of  Connecticut,  XV,  176. 

2.  Colonial    Records    of  Connecticut,  XV. 
176. 


Nai'\  of  the  American  Revolution  359 

and  that  she  would  mount  sixteen  six- 
pounders  and  twenty-four  swivels.1  The 
Governor  and  Council  of  Safety  at  once  pur 
chased  the  brigantine,  which  they  named 
the  "Defence,"  and  appointed  Captain  Seth 
Harding  of  Norwich  to  command  her.  By 
April,  1776,  the  '  'Defence  "  was  manned  and 
ready  for  sea. 

On  January  9,  1776,  the  Governor  and 
Council  of  Safety  appointed  Benjamin  Hunt- 
ington  of  the  Council  of  Safety  and  Captain 
Seth  Harding  a  committee  to  visit  Middle- 
town  and  other  towns  on  the  Connecticut 
river  to  ascertain  the  terms  upon  which  the 
second  vessel  could  be  purchased  or  built.2 
In  the  end  the  Governor  and  Council  of 
Safety  decided  to  build  a  ship  of  200  tons 
burden  at  Saybrook,  and  they  employed 
Captain  Uriah  Hayden  at  six  shillings  a  day 
to  undertake  the  task.8  The  ship  was  built 
during  the  spring  and  summer  of  1776.  An 
important  event  in  the  history  of  the  "  Oliver 
Cromwell,"  as  the  new  ship  was  called,  is 
thus  chronicled  in  the  Connecticut  Gazette 
of  August  23,  1776,  published  at  New  Lon 
don:  "Last  Lord's  Day,  the  new  Ship  of 
War  belonging  to  the  State  of  Connecticut, 
built  at  Say-Brook,  and  commanded  by 
William  Coit,  Esq.,  came  out  of  the  River 

1.  Colonial   Records   of    Connecticut,   XV, 
200-02. 

2.  Ibid.,  223-24. 

3.  Ibid.,  229,  232. 


360  Nary  of  the  American  Revolution 

and  arrived  here  Tuesday :  she  is  the  largest 
Vessel  that  has  ever  come  over  Say  Brook 
Bar,  and  was  piloted  by  Capt.  James  Har 
ris."1 

Before  building  the  row-galleys  the  Gov 
ernor  and  Council  of  Safety  sent  one 
builder  to  Philadelphia  and  another  to  Prov 
idence  in  order  to  take  advantage  of  the 
experiences  of  Pennsylvania  and  Rhode 
Island  in  constructing  this  sort  of  craft.  Of 
the  four  galleys  ordered  in  December,  1775, 
but  three  were  built,  the  "  Whiting"  at  New 
Haven,  the  "Shark"  at  Norwich,  and  the 
"Crane"  at  East  Haddam.  They  were  rig 
ged  as  schooners;  and  by  July,  1776,  their 
construction  was  completed  and  they  were 
officered  and  manned. 

The  General  Assembly  permitted  the  Gov 
ernor  and  Council  of  Safety  a  free  hand 
in  their  control  of  naval  affairs.  They  were 
given  full  power  and  authority  to  order,  di 
rect,  furnish,  and  supply  the  navy,  during 
the  recess  of  the  General  Assembly.  It 
does  not  appear,  however,  that  the  sessions 
of  the  General  Assembly  caused  much  change 
in  the  management  of  the  naval  affairs.  It 
was  not  in  session  longer  than  a  few  weeks 
or  a  few  days  at  a  time.  In  October,  1776, 
the  General  Assembly  directed  the  Govern 
or  and  Council  of  Safety  to  execute  and  con 
tinue  all  naval  business  which  they  had  be 
gun,  the  sessions  of  the  Assembly  notwith- 

1.     Connecticut  Gazette,  August  23,   1776 


Nai'\  of  the  American  Rcz'olution   361 

standing.1  Matters,  which  in  some  states 
were  determined  by  legislation,  such  as  the 
establishing  of  naval  rules  and  regulations, 
the  shares  of  prizes,  and  the  naval  pay,  were 
in  Connecticut  for  the  most  part  left  to  ad 
ministrative  orders.  In  such  work  the  Gov 
ernor  and  Council  of  Safety  often  followed 
Continental  models.  In  July,  1776,  they 
ordered  Richard  Law,  a  member  of  the  Coun 
cil  of  Safety,  to  "compile  a  Code  of  Laws 
for  the  Naval  Service  of  this  Colony,  as 
much  in  conformity  to  the  laws  of  the  naval 
service  of  the  United  Colonies  as  may  con 
sist  with  the  service  of  this  colony."2 

The  Governor  and  Council  of  Safety  trans 
acted  the  naval  business,  as  has  already  been 
seen,  by  means  of  committees  of  the  Coun 
cil  of  Safety,  naval  agents,  and  mixed  com 
mittees  composed  of  members  of  the  Council 
of  Safety  and  men  from  the  outside.  The 
sending  of  prizes  captured  by  Connecticut 
ships  of  war  into  the  ports  of  Massachusetts, 
and  the  refitting  of  the  state's  vessels  in 
Boston,  necessitated  the  employment  of  a 
naval  agent  in  Massachusetts.  In  April, 
1777,  Samuel  Elliot  of  Boston  was  acting 
for  the  Governor  and  Council  of  Safety  in 
this  capacity.  In  October,  1777,  the  Gen 
eral  Assembly  authorized  the  appointment 


1.  Records  of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  I, 

2.  Colonial    Records    of   Connecticut,  XV 
492 


362  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

of  a  naval  agent  for  Massachusetts,  and  on 
the  22nd  of  this  month  the  Governor  and 
Council  of  Safety  appointed  Elliot  agent  in 
all  marine  affairs  to  be  transacted  by  Con 
necticut  in  Massachusetts.1 

During  the  Revolution  the  chief  seaport 
of  Connecticut  was  New  London,  then  one 
of  the  largest  and  most  important  towns  in 
New  England.  The  most  complete  naval 
news  of  the  time  is  to  be  found  in  the  Con 
necticut  Gazette  published  at  New  London, 
and  not  in  the  Hartford  Courant,  or  in  the 
New  Haven  paper,  the  Connecticut  Journal. 
Ne\v  London  wras  the  naval  station  of  the 
Connecticut  fleet,  the  port  where  it  was  re 
fitted  and  repaired.  One  of  the  most 
wealthy,  influential,  and  public-spirited 
merchants  of  New  London  was  Nathaniel 
Shaw,  jr.  He  was  an  ardent  patriot  and  was 
on  intimate  terms  with  Washington  and 
other  Revolutionary  leaders.2  The  Govern- 


1.  Records  of  State  of  Connecticut,  1.212, 
214,   418,   452.      This  is  either  Samuel  Elliot, 
a   Boston  merchant,  or  Samuel  Eliot,  a  most 
distinguished   Boston  merchant,   a  benefactor 
of    Harvard   college,    and   grandfather   of   the 
present    President    Eliot. — See    New    England 
Historical  and  Genealogical   Register,  XXIII 
(1869) ,  338-39.     I  find  the  agent's  name  spelled 
Elliot,  Eliott,  and  Eliot. 

2.  Better  evidence  of  the  social  standing 
of  the  Shaw  family  in  New  London  may  not 
be  needed  than  that  afforded  by  the   statis 
tics    contained    in    the    following    newspaper 
clipping:     "A  great  wedding  dance  took  place 


Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution  363 

or  and  Council  of  Safety  naturally  turned 
to  Shaw  when  naval  duties  were  to  be  per 
formed  in  New  London.  We  have  already 
seen  that  Shaw  was  present  at  a  meeting  of 
the  Council  of  Safety  in  July,  1775,  and  was 
consulted  on  the  initial  naval  project  of  the 
colony.  From  1775  to  1779  the  Governor 
and  Council  of  Safety  availed  themselves  of 
his  services  in  fitting  out  their  naval  ves 
sels.  In  July,  1776,  they  appointed  him 
"Agent  for  the  Colony,  for  the  purpose  of 
naval  supplies  and  for  taking  care  of  such 
sick  seamen  as  may  be  sent  on  shore  to  his 
care.m  In  October,  1778,  the  General  As 
sembly  appointed  Shaw  Marine  Agent  for 
Connecticut  and  authorized  him  to  equip 
the  state  vessels,  to  direct  their  cruises,  and 
to  receive  and  sell  their  prizes,  in  all,  taking 
the  advice  of  the  Governor  and  Council  of 
Safety  from  time  to  time.2 

The  Governor  and  Council  of  Safety 
showed  an  enterprising  willingness  to  exper 
iment  in  naval  warfare,  when  in  February, 
1776,  they  permitted  David  Bushnell  to 

at  New  London  at  the  house  of  Nathaniel 
Shaw,  Esq.,  June  12,  1769,  the  day  after  the 
marriage  of  his  son  Daniel  Shaw  and  Grace 
Coit;  92  gentlemen  and  ladies  attended,  and 
danced  92  jigs,  52  contra-dances,  45  minuets, 
and  17  horn-pipes,  and  retired  45  minutes 
past  midnight." — F.  M.  Caulkins,  History  of 
Norwich,  Connecticut,  332. 

1.  Colonial    Records    of  Connecticut,  XV, 
474. 

2.  Records  of  State  of  Connecticut,  II,  136. 


364  Xary  of  the  American  Revolution 

explain  to  them  his  machine  for  blowing  up 
ships,  and  voted  him  £60  to  complete  his 
invention.1  Bushnell's  l  'American  Turtle," 
as  his  contrivance  was  called,  anticipated 
modern  inventions  in  submarine  warfare. 
It  consisted  of  a  tortoise-shaped  diving  boat 
which  could  be  propelled  under  water.  It 
contained  a  supply  of  air  sufficient  to  last 
the  operator  a  half-hour,  and  was  guided  by 
means  of  a  compass  made  visible  by  phos 
phorus.  Upon  reaching  the  doomed  ves 
sel  a  screw  was  driven  into  it  by  the  operator. 
A  magazine  of  powder  was  attached  by  a 
string  to  the  screw.  The  casting  of  the  mag 
azine  from  the  diving-boat  set  going  a  cer 
tain  clock-work  which  gave  the  operator 
time  to  get  beyond  the  reach  of  danger  before 
it  ignited  the  powder.  In  1777  a  trial  of  the 
''Turtle"  against  the  British  ship  " Eagle," 
84,  in  New  York  Harbor  was  unsuccessful. 
The  operator  succeeded  in  getting  under 
the  "Eagle/'  but  was  unable  to  drive  the 
gcrew  into  her  bottom. 

Connecticut  did  not  establish  state  priva 
teering.  In  May,  1776,  the  General  Assem 
bly  authorized  the  Governor  to  fill  out  the 
blank  privateering  commissions  which  the 
President  of  Congress  should  send  from  time 

1.  Colonial  Records  of  Connecticut,  XV, 
233-36.  I  have  followed  the  familiar  ac 
counts  of  this  invention.  Washington  gave 
Jefferson  an  account  of  Bushnell's  invention 
in  September,  1785. — Ford,  Writings  of  Wash 
ington,  X,  504-06. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   365 

to  time,  and  to  deliver  them  to  such  persons 
as  should  execute  the  bond  prescribed  by 
Congress.1  A  list  of  Connecticut  privateers 
in  which  some  vessels  are  counted  two  or 
more  times  has  been  made  out.  The  totals 
of  this  list  give  202  vessels,  1,609  guns,  and 
7,754  men.2  In  order  to  enlist  her  quota  of 
troops  for  the  Continental  army,  Connecti 
cut  in  May,  1780,  placed  an  embargo  upon 
privateers.3  In  May,  1776,  the  General  As 
sembly,  in  pursuance  of  the  recommenda 
tions  of  the  Continental  Congress  relative  to 
the  establishment  of  admiralty  courts  by 
each  state,  vested  the  county  courts  of  Con 
necticut  with  the  power  to  '  'try,  judge,  and 
determine,  by  jury  or  otherwise,  as  in  other 
cases,  concerning  all  captures  that  have  or 
shall  be  taken  and  brought  into  said  respec 
tive  counties."  The  courts  were  to  follow  the 
rules  of  the  civil  law,  the  law  of  nations,  and 
the  resolutions  of  Congress.  Appeals  were 
allowed  to  the  Continental  Congress  agree 
able  to  its  directions  and  resolves.  Connect 
icut  was  more  liberal  in  granting  appeals  to 
Congress  than  Massachusetts,  which  state, 


1.  Colonial    Records    of  Connecticut,   XV, 
318-19. 

2.  Records    and    Papers    of    New    London 
County  Historical  Society,  I,  pt.  4,  p.  32. 

3.  State    Archives,    Acts    of    Connecticut, 
May,  1780.      The  laying  of  embargoes  on  pri 
vateers  for  short   periods  in   order  to   obtain 
men  for  different  purposes  was  common  dur 
ing  the  Revolution. 


366  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

it  will  be  recalled,  permitted  such  appeals 
only  in  cases  of  captures  made  by  the  ves 
sels  of  the  Continental  navy.1 

The  reader  may  recollect  that  on  August 
26,  1776,  the  Continental  Congress  recom 
mended  that  each  state  should  grant  certain 
pensions  to  its  citizens  who  should  receive 
serious  disabilities  in  the  Continental  naval 
service.  In  May,  1777,  the  Connecticut 
General  Assembly  granted  such  pensions; 
and  in  imitation  of  the  resolutions  of  Con 
gress  it  granted  half-pay  to  all  officers,  sea 
men,  and  marines  in  the  Connecticut  navy, 
who  were  wrounded  in  action  so  as  to  be  dis 
abled  from  earning  a  livelihood ;  and  a  frac 
tion  of  half-pay  for  lesser  disabilities.2 

In  October,  1777,  the  House  of  Represen 
tatives  passed  a  bill  providing  an  elaborate 
list  of  rules  and  regulations  relating  to  naval 
discipline,  naval  courts-martial,  pay  of  offi 
cers  and  seamen,  and  the  sharing  of  prizes. 
The  bill,  however,  was  rejected  by  the  Coun 
cil.3  In  April,  1779,  when  too  late  to  be  of 
much  service,  the  General  Assembly  passed 
a  statute  creating  a  naval  establishment, 
which  was  modelled  on  that  of  Congress. 
Two  scales  of  wages  were  established,  one  for 
vessels  under  twenty  guns,  and  the  other 

1.  Colonial    Records    of   Connecticut,   XV, 
280-81. 

2.  See  Chapter    IV,    page    129;  Records  of 
State  of  Connecticut,   I,  246-49. 

3.  Connecticut     Revolutionary     Archives, 
VIII,  1777-1778. 


A'iJT'v  of  tJic  American  Revolution   367 

for  vessels  of  twenty  guns  or  upwards. 
Captains  of  the  two  classes  received  a 
monthly  wage,  respectively,  of  $48  and  $60; 
lieutenants  and  masters,  $24  and  $30;  and 
boatswains,  $13  and  $15.  The  wages  for 
seamen  and  marines  did  not  vary,  being  $8 
for  seamen,  and  $6.67  for  marines.  The 
sharing  of  prizes  among  officers  and  seamen 
varied  for  the  two  classes.  In  general,  the 
same  offices  were  established  as  in  the  Con 
tinental  navy;  there  were,  however,  not  so 
many  of  them.  Following  the  regulations 
of  Congress,  the  General  Assembly  gave  the 
officers,  seamen,  and  marines  the  whole  of 
captured  ships  of  war  and  privateers,  and 
one-half  of  all  other  vessels.1 

Besides  the  vessels  already  mentioned, 
there  were,  in  the  Connecticut  navy,  for  a 
short  time  in  1777,  the  schooner  "Mifflin" 
and  the  sloop  "Schuyler;"  and  for  an  equally 
brief  period  in  1779,  the  sloop  "Guilford."2 


1.  Records    of    State    of    Connecticut,   II, 
230-33. 

2.  The    vessels    of    the    Connecticut    navy 
with  the  approximate  periods  of  their  service 
were  as  follows:     Brigantine  "Minerva,"  1775; 
schooner  "Spy,"   1775-1778;  ship  "Defence," 
1776-1779;    ship     "Oliver    Cromwell,"     1776- 
1779;  galleys  "Crane"  and  "Whiting,"  1776; 
galley  "Shark,"  1776-1777;  schooner  "Mifflin," 
1777;     sloop     "Schuyler,"     1777;     and     sloop 
"Guilford,"  1779.     The  galley  "New  Defence," 
belonging  to  Branford,  received  arms,  ammu 
nition,  and  stores  from  the  state.      The  sloop 
"Dolphin,"  a  prize  of  the     "Spy,"  was  pur- 


368  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

By  far  the  most  important  vessels  in  the 
navy  were  the  "Oliver  Cromwell",  18,  "De 
fence",  14,  and  "Spy",  6.  The  principal 
cruising  ground  of  the  Connecticut  vessels 
was  in  and  near  Long  Island  Sound.  This 
region  was  fairly  alive  with  British  craft  of 
all  sorts.  Long  Island  was  a  nest  of  Tories, 
and  New  York  was  of  course  headquarters 
for  the  British  in  America.  Connecticut, 
being  convenient  to  both  places,  found 
much  service  for  her  navy  in  piotecting  her 
coasts  and  in  preventing  illicit  trade  with 
the  enemy. 

The  cruises  of  the  "Oliver  Cromwell," 
"Defence,"  and  "Spy"  were  by  no  means 
confined  to  the  waters  near  home.  Several 
times  they  visited  the  ports  of  Massachu 
setts.  In  the  summer  of  1777  the  "Oliver 
Cromwell"  cruised  to  the  northward  of  the 
Azores,  in  the  path  of  the  homeward  bound 
West  Indiamen,  where  she  captured  and 
sent  into  Massachusetts  the  brigantine 
"Honor"  and  the  "Weymouth"  packet. 
In  the  spring  of  1777  the  "Defence"  and  a 
privateer  met  with  success  to  the  windward 
of  the  Lesser  Antilles  in  capturing  British 


chased  in  the  fall  of  1777,  and  sent  to  Phila 
delphia  for  flour.  The  following  captains  were 
the  chief  officers  of  the  navy:  Giles  Hall, 
Robert  Niles,  William  Coit,  Seth  Harding, 
Timothy  Parker,  and  Samuel  Smedley.  Coit 
had  commanded  the  "Harrison"  in  Washing 
ton's  fleet,  and  Harding  was  given  a  commis 
sion  in  the  Continental  navy. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  369 

vessels  bound  for  the  West  Indies.  In  the 
following  spring  the  "Oliver  Cromwell"  and 
the  "Defence"  were  cruising  in  the  same  re 
gion,  where  they  captured  the  letter  of 
marque  "Admiral  Keppel,"  eighteen  six- 
pounders,  the  most  valuable  prize  taken 
by  the  Connecticut  navy.  The  "Admiral 
Keppel"  and  her  cargo  sold  in  Boston  for 
£22,321.  In  June  and  July,  1778,  the  "Oli 
ver  Cromwell"  and  the  "Defence"  refitted 
in  Charleston,  South  Carolina.  Towards 
the  end  of  July  the  "Oliver  Cromwell" 
sailed  for  Nantes  with  a  load  of  indigo, 
which  she  expected  to  exchange  for  cloth 
ing.  Encountering  a  storm,  this  vessel  was 
dismasted,  and  forced  to  return  to  Connect 
icut.  Some  thirty  prizes,  most  of  which 
reached  safe  ports,  were  captured  dur 
ing  the  Revolution  by  the  Connecticut 
navy.1 

Upon  the  urgent  and  repeated  solicita 
tions  of  Washington,  the  three  Connecticut 
galleys  were  sent  by  the  Governor  and  Coun 
cil  of  Safety  in  the  summer  of  1776  to  New 
York  to  assist  in  the  campaign  on  the  Hud 
son.  The  "Crane"  and  "Whiting,"  after 
giving  a  good  account  of  themselves  in  an 
attack  on  twro  British  vessels  near  Tarry- 
town,  were  lost  to  the  enemy  in  the  fall  of 
1776.  The  "Shark"  probably  met  a  similar 

1.  Revolutionary  Files  of  Connecticut  Ga 
zette,  Hartford  Courant,  and  Connecticut 
Journal. 


3/o  A'ai'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

fate.1  The  "Spy,"  Captain  Robert  Niles, 
was  one  of  several  vessels  which  were  se 
lected  to  carry  to  France  the  news  of  the  rat 
ification  by  Congress  of  the  French  treaties 
of  February,  1778.  Captain  Niles  had  the 
honor  of  reaching  France  first  with  his  im 
portant  message  and  packet.  On  his  re 
turn  voyage  Niles  and  his  vessel  were  cap 
tured.  In  March,  1779,  the  "Defence" 
struck  on  a  reef  near  Waterford,  Connecti 
cut,  and  sank.2  On  June  5,  after  a  severe 
fight  to  the  southward  of  Sandy  Hook,  the 
"Oliver  Cromwell"  surrendered  to  a  super 
ior  force.3  About  July  1  the  "Guilford,"  8, 
which  had  been  recently  added  to  the  navy, 
was  taken  by  the  enemy.4  With  the  cap 
ture  of  this  vessel,  the  navy  of  Connecticut 
came  to  an  end. 

The  warfare  of  "armed  boats"  partici 
pated  in  by  Connecticut  deserves  notice. 
During  the  Revolution  much  smuggling 
\vas  carried  on  between  men  in  Connect 
icut  and  the  British  and  Tories  on  Long  Isl 
and  and  at  New  York.  The  feeding  of  the 
British  army  at  New  York,  the  supplying 

1.  Colonial    Records   of   Connecticut,  XV, 
481,  488;  Records  of  State  of  Connecticut,  I, 
85,  201;  Hartford  Courant,  August   12,   1776; 
Connecticut  in  Revolution,  593-94. 

2.  Records  of  State  of  Connecticut,  II,  372 ; 
Wharton,  Diplomatic  Correspondence,  II,  642, 
650.      Hartford   Courant,  March  16,  1779. 

3.  Hartford  Courant,  June  15,  1779. 

4.  Records  of  State  of  Connecticut,  II,  360. 


Naz'y  of  the  American  Revolution   371 

of  the  Tories  on  Long  Island,  and  the  de 
mand  for  manufactured  articles  in  Connect 
icut,  naturally  made  good  markets.  Po 
litical  law  was  in  rivalry  with  economic  law, 
and  proved,  in  large  part,  powerless.  In 
1778,  1779,  and  1780,  the  Connecticut  Gen 
eral  Assembly  passed  a  number  of  stringent 
acts  forbidding  illicit  commerce  with  the 
enemy.  Many  patriot  refugees  had  fled  to 
Connecticut  from  Long  Island.  Some  of 
these  men  would  obtain  a  license  to  return 
to  their  former  homes  for  their  property, 
and  under  its  cover  would  engage  in  smug 
gling.  To  prevent  this  abuse,  the  General 
Assembly  in  April,  1779,  recalled  the 
power  to  issue  licenses,  which  it  had  previ 
ously  vested  in  the  selectmen  of  towns.1 

Since  the  trade  had  assumed  alarming 
proportions,  the  General  Assembly,  in  May, 
1780,  authorized  the  Governor  and  Council 
of  Safety  to  commission  not  more  than 
twelve  armed  boats  to  suppress  the  trade.2 
In  October,  Colonel  William  Ledyard,  who 
was  in  command  of  the  forts  at  New  London 
and  Groton,  was  ordered  to  provide  three 
more  whaleboats,  besides  the  two  which  he 
already  had  obtained,  to  be  used  in  the  Sound 
against  the  smugglers ;  and  the  Commandant 
of  the  French  navy  at  Newport  was  asked  to 
send  two  vessels  to  aid  in  the  work.3  These 

L      Records  of  State  of  Connecticut,  II,  222. 

2.  State    Archives,    Acts    of    Connecticut, 
May,  1780. 

3.  Ibid.,  October.  1780- 


372  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

efforts  of  the  state  were  in  large  part  unavail 
ing.  Some  of  the  boats  commissioned  to 
stop  the  trade  became  participants  in  it. 
"On  consideration  of  the  Many  Evils  com 
mitted  by  the  armed  Boats  in  this  State 
commissioned  to  cruise  on  their  own  acct. 
for  the  pretended  purpose  of  making  cap 
tures  on  the  enemy  and  preventing  illicit 
Trade  and  Traders,"  the  General  Assembly 
on  January  23,  1781,  revoked  all  the  com 
missions  wrhich  it  had  given  to  the  armed 
boats. 

A  more  successful  attempt  to  stamp  out 
the  abuse  was  that  made  by  Norwich,  in 
January,  1.782.  Certain  associators  agreed 
to  hold  no  social  or  commercial  intercourse 
with  those  persons  detected  in  evading  the 
laws.  They  provided  boats  which  kept 
watch  at  suspected  places;  smuggled  goods, 
wherever  found,  were  seized  and  sold,  and 
the  proceeds  were  devoted  to  charitable 
purposes.1 

1.     History  of  Norwich,  F.  M,  Caulkins,  398. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  NAVY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 

The  two  objects  of  Pennsylvania's  naval 
enterprises  were  the  defence  of  Philadelphia 
and  the  protection  in  Delaware  river  and 
bay  of  the  outward  and  inward  bound  trade 
of  the  state.  These  two  needs  determined 
the  form  and  size  of  her  armed  vessels  and 
the  character  of  their  operations.  Pennsyl 
vania  therefore  adapted  her  fleet  to  shal 
low  waters.  Only  in  a  few  instances  did 
her  armed  vessels  pass  beyond  the  Capes  of 
the  Delaware  into  the  Atlantic. 

On  July  5,  1775,  the  Pennsylvania  Com 
mittee  of  Safety,  the  first  Revolutionary 
executive  of  this  state,  visited  "Red  Bank/' 
situated  a  few  miles  below  Philadelphia, 
near  the  mouth  of  the  Schuylkill,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  deciding  on  the  character  of  the  de 
fences  which  were  to  be  made  at  this  point 
on  the  river.  On  the  6th,  having  returned 
to  Philadelphia,  the  Committee  reported 
the  results  of  its  inspection;  whereupon  it 
came  to  its  first  naval  resolution,  that 
Robert  White  and  Owen  Biddle  be  a 
committee  for  the  construction  of  boats  and 


3/4  -Vary  of  the  American  Revolution 

machines  for  the  defence  of  the  River.1  On 
July  8  it  ordered  John  Wharton  to  immedi 
ately  build  a  "Boat  or  Calevat,"  47  or  50 
feet  keel,  13  feet  broad,  and  4  1-2  feet  deep. 
By  October,  thirteen  such  galleys  or  armed 
boats  had  been  built,  at  a  cost  of  about 
£550  each.  They  were  armed  chiefly  with 
18-pounders.2  During  the  late  summer  and 
the  fall  of  1775  the  Committee  of  Safety  at 
tended  to  the  numerous  details  of  officering, 
manning,  arming,  and  provisioning  these 
galleys.  It  chose  a  captain  and  lieutenant 
for  each  of  them;  and  on  October  23  it  ap 
pointed  Thomas  Read  commodore  of  the 
fleet.  It  organized  a  naval  staff  consisting 
of  a  muster  master,  a  pay  master,  a  surgeon, 
an  assistant  surgeon,  a  ship's  husband,  and 
'"'a'  victualer.  The  distinguished  scholar, 
Dr.  Benjamin  Rush,  was  made  surgeon. 
The  Committee  of  Safety  prepared  a  form 
of  commission  for  officers,  a  list  of  rules  and 
regulations,  general  instructions  for  the 
captains,  and  general  instructions  for  the 
commodore.3 

The  rules  and  regulations  of  the  Pennsyl- 

1.  Colonial    Records    of    Pennsylvania,  X, 
Minutes  of  Committee  of  Safety,  July  4,  6,  8, 
1775. 

2.  Pennsylvania  Archives  2nd,  I,  246;  Wal 
lace's  William  Bradford,  203. 

3.  Colonial    Records    of    Pennsylvania,  X, 
Minutes  of  Committee  of  Safety,'  August  26, 
September   1,  October  2,   12,    16,  23,   Novem 
ber  6,  1775.      See  also  the  Minutes  of  the  Com 
mittee  of  Safety  for  each  day  of  this  period. 


XiK-y  of  the  American  Revolution   375 

vania  navy  were  concerned  with  little  else 
than  the  establishing  of  a  penal  code.  All 
penal  offenses  were  to  be  tried  by  a  court- 
martial,  which,  in  capital  cases,  was  to  con 
sist  of  fifteen  naval  officers ;  and  in  all  other 
cases,  of  five  officers,  unless  so  many  could 
not  be  assembled,  when  it  might  consist  of 
three.  A  majority  of  the  court  was  suffi 
cient  to  convict,  except  in  capital  cases, 
where  two-thirds  were  necessary.  In  re 
turning  a  verdict,  the  officers  of  lowest  rank 
voted  first.  Except  in  cases  of  mutiny,  or  of 
cowardice  in  time  of  action,  all  sentences  of 
death  needed  the  approval  of  the  General  </ 
Assembly,  or,  in  its  recess,  of  the  Committee 
of  Safety.  Besides  the  death  penalty,  a 
court-martial  could  inflict  no  punishment 
other  than  "degrading,  cashiering,  drum 
ming  out  of  the  fleet,  whipping,  not  exceed 
ing  thirty-nine  lashes,  fine,  not  exceeding 
two  months'  pay,  and  imprisonment,  not 
exceeding  one  month."  All  fines  were  to 
go  to  the  relief  of  those  maimed  and  dis 
abled  in  the  service,  or  to  the  widows  and 
families  of  such  as  should  be  killed.  These 
rules,  apparently,  were  not  influenced  by 
those  of  the  Continental  navy  prepared  by 
John  Adams.1 

On  November  7,  1775,  the  Committee  of 
Safety  decided  to  build  a  ship  for  the  serv 
ice  on  the  Delaware,  which  would  mount 

1.  Colonial  Records  of  Pennsylvania,  X,  Min 
utes  of  Committee  of  Safety,  August  29,  1775. 


376  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

twenty  18-pounders;  and  it  appointed  six 
of  its  members,  among  whom  were  Robert 
Morris  and  John  Nixon,  a  committee  to 
build  and  arm  the  vessel.  This  committee 
estimated  that  £9,000  would  be  necessary 
to  construct  the  ship.  Later,  owing  to  the 
unfitness  of  the  season  for  shipbuilding, 
it  was  authorized  to  purchase  a  vessel.1  By 
April,  1776,  it  had  obtained  and  equipped 
the  ship  "Montgomery,"  and  Thomas 
Read  had  been  given  command  of  it. 
A  number  of  small  and  unimportant 
craft  were  gradually  added  to  the  navy. 
On  December  28,  1775,  Captain  John 
Hazelwood  was  appointed  commander 
of  ten  fire-rafts.  These  rafts  were  thirty- 
five  feet  long  and  thirteen  feet  wide,  were 
loaded  with  oil  barrels,  rosin  casks,  turpen 
tine,  brimstone,  and  various  other  inflam 
mables,  and  were  designed  to  float  down 
stream  and  set  fire  to  the  enemy's  ships 
through  direct  contact.2  An  inventory  of 
the  navy,  dated  August  1,  1776,  shows  the 
following  vessels  and  men:  the  ship  "Mont 
gomery,"  138  men;  the  floating  battery 
"Arnold,"  82  men;  thirteen  galleys,  35  men 
each;  six  guard  boats,  12  men  each;  six 
small  vessels,  including  fire-ships,  a  total 
of  27  men.  The  total  number  of  officers, 

1.  Colonial   Records   of    Pennsylvania,   X, 
Minutes  of  Committee  of  Safety,  November  7, 
November  10,  1775. 

2.  Ibid.,  December  28,  1775;  Pennsylvania 
Archives,  2nd,  I,  248,  note. 


Xary  of  the  American  Revolution  377 

seamen,  and  marines  was  768;  the  Pennsyl 
vania  land  forces  at  this  time  amounted  to 
1,365  men.1  In  August,  1776,  the  schooner 
"Delaware"  and  the  brig  ''Convention" 
were  added;  and  in  the  fall  the  "Putnam" 
floating  battery. 

I  have  found  no  mention  of  the  uniform 
of  the  officers  of  the  Pennsylvania  navy. 
The  uniform  of  the  Pennsylvania  marines 
was  "a  brown  coat  faced  with  green,  letters 
1.  P.  B.  on  the  buttons,  and  a  cocked  hat." 
In  October,  1776,  the  flag  for  the  naval  ves 
sels  had  not  been  provided.  The  following 
memorandum,  taken  from  the  minutes  of 
the  Pennsylvania  Navy  Board  of  May  29, 
1777,  shows  that  flags  had  then  been  pro 
cured:  "An  Order  on  William  Webb  to 
Elizabeth  Ross,  for  fourteen  pounds  twelve 
shillings  and  two  pence,  for  Making  Ships' 
Colours  etc."2 

The  Committee  of  Safety  was  assisted 
and  directed  in  its  naval  work  by  committees 
of  its  own  members,  of  which  the  principal 
ones  are  as  follows:  "ship  committee," 

1.  Pennsylvania  Archives,  1st,  V,  3-5.     The 
names  of  the  thirteen  galleys  were  as  follows: 
"Bull    Dog,"    "Burke,"    "Camden,"    "Chat 
ham,"     "Congress,"     "Dickinson,"     "Experi 
ment,"  "Effingham,"  "Franklin,"  "Hancock," 
"Ranger,"     "Warren,"     and     "Washington." 
The  "Delaware"  and  "Convention"  were  at 
times  referred  to  as  galleys. 

2.  Pennsylvania  Archives,  1st,  V,  46;  2nd, 
I,  Minutes  of  Pennsylvania  Navy  Board,  May 
29,  1777;  2nd,  I,  251. 


3/8  Xary  of  the  American  Revolution 

"armed  boat  committee,"  "committee  for 
fitting  out  two  of  the  armed  boats/'  "com 
mittee  for  building  two  galleys  for  the  Bay 
Service/'  and  "committee  for  fitting  out 
four  guard  boats  to  cruise  at  Cape  May." 
The  Committee  of  Safety  was  composed  of 
twenty-five  members,  any  seven  of  whom 
formed  a  quorum.  Benjamin  Franklin  was 
its  first  president.  Robert  Morris  was  for 
a  time  its  vice-president.  In  the  absence 
of  Franklin,  Morris  or  John  Nixon  often  pre 
sided.  On  July  23,  1776,  the  Pennsylvania 
Convention  appointed  a  Council  of  Safety 
to  succeed  the  Committee  of  Safety,  a  suc 
cession  which  involved  merely  a  change  of 
personnel  and  of  name.  From  July  24, 
1776,  until  March  4,  1777,  when  the  Supreme 
Executive  Council,  the  executive  under  the 
first  state  constitution,  assumed  control, 
the  administration  of  the  Pennsylvania 
navy  was  vested  in  the  Council  of  Safety. 

Much  difficulty  was  experienced  by  the 
several  Pennsylvania  executives  in  finding 
suitable  commodores  for  the  fleet.  The 
office  on  October  23,  1775,  first  fell  to  Thom 
as  Read.  On  January  13,  1776,  Thomas 
Caldwell  was  made  commodore;  and  on 
March  6,  1776,  Read  was  formally  placed 
second  in  command.  Failing  in  health, 
Caldwell,  on  May  25,  resigned,  and  on  June 
15  the  Committee  of  Safety  appointed  Sam 
uel  Davidson.  This  succession  met  with 
serious  and  continued  opposition  on  the 


A'l/i'v  of  the  American  Revolution   379 

part  of  the  officers  of  the  navy.  They  de 
clared  that  the  appointment  of  Davidson 
violated  the  rule  of  promotion  according  to 
seniority  in  service ;  and  they  made  vigorous 
remonstrances,  which  received  countenance 
and  support  from  men  of  influence  in  Phila 
delphia.  So  serious  was  the  clamor  and  in 
subordination,  that  the  Committee  of  Safety 
was  compelled  to  yield  to  the  demands  of  a 
resolution  of  the  Provincial  Conference  of 
Committees,  and  remove  Davidson  from  the 
command  of  all  the  vessels  except  the  ship 
''Montgomery"  and  the  "Arnold"  floating 
battery.  The  Committee,  however,  in  an 
"Address  to  the  Inhabitants  of  Pennsyl 
vania/'  upheld  the  propriety  and  justice  of 
their  appointment;  and  it  declared  that  by 
the  support  which  the  dissatisfied  officers 
had  received  "mutiny  was  justified  and 
abetted  and  disobedience  triumphed  over 
Authority."1 

When  the  Council  of  Safety  assumed  con 
trol  of  the  navy  on  July  24,  1776,  it  found 
the  spirit  of  dissatisfaction  and  insubordi 
nation  so  strong  among  the  naval  officers 
that  it  removed  Davidson  from  the  navy; 
at  the  same  time,  however,  it  declared 
that  the  charges  made  against  him 


1.  Colonial  Records  of  Pennsylvania,  X, 
Minutes  of  Committee  of  Safety,  July  2,  1776; 
Proceedings  of  Provincial  Conference  of  Com 
mittees  of  Pennsylvania,  June  23,  June  24, 
1776. 


380  A'ai'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

were  frivolous.1  On  September  2,  1776, 
the  Council  of  Safety  gave  Samuel  Mifflin 
an  opportunity  to  decline  the  office  of 
commodore.  Thomas  Seymour  was  named 
for  the  place  on  September  26,  1776. 
Early  in  1777  Captain  John  Hazelwood, 
"Commander-in-Chief  of  the  Fire  Vessels, 
Boats  and  Rafts  belonging  to  the  State," 
objected  to  being  subject  to  the  orders  of 
Commodore  Seymour,  who  was  an  old  man, 
infirm,  and  incapacitated  for  his  position. 
On  September  6,  1777,  when  Philadelphia 
was  threatened  by  the  British,  Seymour  was 
discharged,  and  Hazelwood  was  appointed 
in  his  place.2  Hazelwood  was  the  sixth 
commodore  within  less  than  two  years. 

The  Committee  of  Safety  and  the  Council 
of  Safety  passed  a  number  of  resolutions  fix 
ing  the  naval  pay.  For  a  time  the  officers 
on  board  the  ship  "Montgomery"  and  the 
two  floating  batteries  were  generally  paid 
larger  wages  than  those  on  board  the  galleys. 
On  February  22,  1777,  the  Council  of  Safety 
adopted  a  new  pay-table,  which  gave  the 
same  salary  to  officers  of  the  same  rank,  on 
whatever  vessel  employed.  The  monthly 
wages  of  the  leading  officers  were  as  follows : 
commodore,  $75;  captains,  $48;  first  lieu- 


1.  Colonial   Records   of    Pennsylvania,    X, 
Minutes  of  Council  of  Safety,  August  22,  Aug 
ust  27,  1776. 

2.  Ibid. ,  XI,  Minutes  of  Supreme  Executive 
Council,  September  6,  1777. 


A'at'v  of  the  American  Revolution  381 

tenants,  $30;  second  lieutenants,  $20;  and 
surgeons,  $48.  Seamen  were  paid  $12  a 
month.  A  bounty  of  $12  was  now  given  to 
recruits.1  On  June  25,  1777,  the  salary  of 
the  commodore  was  raised  to  $125  a  month.2 
On  February  4,  1776,  the  Committee  of 
Safety  gave  captors  two-thirds  of  the  pro 
ceeds  of  the  prizes  taken  on  the  Delaware 
river,  and  reserved  the  remaining  one-third 
for  the  maintenance  of  disabled  sailors  and 
the  widows  and  families  of  those  who  should 
be  killed.3 

Recognizing  the  navy's  need  of  a  perma 
nent  body  of  administrators,  the  Council  of 
Safety  on  February  13,  1777,  appointed  a 
Navy  Board  of  six  members  who  were  auth 
orized  to  take  under  their  care  all  the  ves 
sels  of  the  navy.  On  February  19  four 
additional  members  were  added.4  On 
March  13,  1777,  the  Supreme  Executive 
Council,  which  on  March  4  had  become  the 
executive  of  the  state,  reconstituted  the 
naval  board.  It  was  now  to  consist  of 
eleven  members,  any  three  of  whom  formed 
a  quorum.  It  was  given  "full  power  and 
authority  to  do  and  perform  all  Matters  and 


1.  Colonial  Records  of   Pennsylvania,  XI, 
Minutes  of  Council  of  Safety,  February  22,  1777. 

2.  Ibid.,    Minutes    of    Supreme    Executive 
Council,  June  25,  1777. 

3.  Ibid. ,  X ,  Minutes  of  Committee  of  Safety 
February  4,  1776. 

4.  Ibid.,  XI,  Minutes  of  Council  of  Safety, 
February  13,  February  19,  1777. 


382  A^az'y  of  tlic  American  Revolution 

things  Relating  to  the  Navy  of  this  State, 
subject  nevertheless  to  the  directions  and 
examinations  of  the  Council,  from  time  to 
time,  as  we  may  judge  expedient,  and  sav 
ing  to  ourselves  always  the  power  of  ap 
pointing  officers."  William  Bradford  and 
Joseph  Blewer,  who  each  served  for  a  time 
as  chairman  of  the  Board,  were  its  most  use 
ful  members.  On  the  same  day,  March  13, 
the  Supreme  Executive  Council  constituted 
a  Board  of  War.1 

The  work  of  the  Navy  Board  consisted  of 
a  great  variety  of  details  relating  to  provis 
ioning,  arming,  equipping,  officering,  and 
manning  the  numerous  craft  of  the  navy. 
Soon  after  entering  into  office  it  reported  to 
the  Council  that  it  found  the  armed  boats 
needing  repairs  and  alterations,  and  that 
owing  to  the  better  wages  paid  to  the  seamen 
on  board  privateers  there  was  a  shameful 
deficiency  in  the  armed  boats'  complement 
of  men.  The  Board  recommended  the  lay 
ing  of  an  embargo  to  prevent  the  sailing  of 
private  ships  until  the  navy  should  be  re- 

1.  Colonial  Records  of  Pennsylvania,  XI, 
Minutes  of  Supreme  Executive  Council, 
March  13,  1777.  The  members  of  the  Navy 
Board  as  constituted  by  the  Supreme  Ex 
ecutive  Council  were  as  follows:  Andrew 
Caldwell,  Joseph  Blewer,  Joseph  Marsh, 
Emanuel  Eyre,  Robert  Ritchie,  Paul  Cox, 
Samuel  Massey,  William  Bradford,  Thomas 
Fitzsimmons,  Samuel  Morris,  jr.,  and  Thomas 
Barclay. 


XiU'v  of  the  American  Revolution   383 

cruited.  It  found  that  additional  officers 
were  needed.1  The  Council  immediately  or 
dered  the  Board  to  appoint  the  requisite 
number  of  warrant  officers  and  to  recom 
mend  proper  commissioned  officers. 

During  1777  the  naval  business  of  Penn 
sylvania  was  large  and  complicated.  A 
list  of  stores  issued  to  the  navy  for  one 
month  during  the  year  contains  the  names 
of  fifty-one  vessels.  Many  of  these  are  minor 
and  unimportant  craft,  such  as  half-gal 
leys,  fire-ships,  and  accommodation  sloops. 
A  return  of  the  Naval  Department  on  Feb 
ruary  1,  1777,  shows  71  commissioned  offic 
ers,  2  staff  officers,  123  non-commissioned 
officers,  and  513  privates;  total  officers  and 
men  in  the  navy,  709.  Many  men  who 
enlisted  in  the  navy  had  little  or  no  experi 
ence  at  sea.  The  amount  of  the  pay  rolls  for 
May,  1777,  was  £6,325.2 

The  salient  event  in  the  history  of  the 
Pennsylvania  navy  was  the  campaign  on 
the  Delaware  river  which  followed  the  occu 
pation  of  Philadelphia  by  the  British  in 
September,  1777.  Before  this  time  the 
navy  had  rendered  miscellaneous  services 
on  the  Delaware  river  and  bay,  which  had 
been  useful  though  not  at  all  brilliant.  Now 


1.  Captains  Nicholas  Biddle,  Thomas  Read 
and  Charles  Alexander,  and  Lieutenant  James 
Josiah    resigned  from  the  Pennsylvania  navy 
to  enter  the  Continental  navy. 

2.  Pennsylvania  Archives,  2nd,  I,  416-24. 


384  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

and  then  some  of  the  vessels  were  ordered 
down  the  river  to  protect  incoming  and  out 
going  merchantmen,  or  to  drive  back  the 
venturesome  craft  of  the  enemy.  On  May 
8,  1776,  the  galleys  had  a  spirited  engage 
ment  with  the  "  Roebuck, "  44,  and  the  "  Liv 
erpool/'  28,  in  the  Delaware  river  near  the 
mouth  of  Christiana  Creek.  Little  injury 
was  done  on  either  side.  The  British  ves 
sels  returned  to  the  Delaware  Capes,  and  the 
Americans  returned  to  their  station  at  Mud 
Island,  which  was  generally  the  headquar 
ters  for  the  state  fleet. 

The  reader  is  familiar  with  the  military 
movements  of  Howe  during  the  summer  and 
fall  of  1777;  his  irretrievable  blunder  in  sail 
ing  from  New  York  for  Philadelphia,  instead 
of  cooperating  with  Burgoyne  in  the  cam 
paign  on  the  Hudson;  his  landing  with  an 
army  at  the  head  of  Elk  in  Maryland  late  in 
August;  his  march  to  Philadelphia;  and 
after  fighting  the  battle  of  Brandywine,  his 
entry  into  that  city  late  in  September.  Upon 
occupying  Philadelphia  the  British  were 
forced  to  open  a  communication  with  the 
sea.  This  was  for  the  time  being  prevented 
by  the  American  defences  at  Mud  Island 
and  Red  Bank  just  below  the  mouth  of  the 
Schuylkill.  Here  were  situated  Forts  Mer 
cer  and  Miffh'n;  and  here  were  stationed  the 
vessels  of  the  Pennsylvania  and  Continental 
navy  under  the  command  of  Commodore 
Hazelwood.  During  October  and  Novem- 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  385 

ber,  1777,  the  Pennsylvania  navy  did  its 
best  fighting  and  rendered  its  most  valuable 
services.  At  this  time  the  Pennsylvania 
Navy  Board  made  its  headquarters  near  the 
fleet  on  board  the  sloop  "  Speedwell." 

On  October  22  and  23,  when  the  British 
fleet  below  the  American  defences  on  the 
Delaware  attempted  to  pass  them,  Commo 
dore  Hazelwood  with  two  floating  batteries 
and  twelve  galleys  forced  them  to  retire,  and 
succeeded  in  burning  two  of  their  vessels, 
the  "Augusta/'  64,  and  "Merlin,"  18,  which 
ran  aground.  Congress  voted  Hazelwood 
an  elegant  sword  in  recognition  of  his  merit. 
On  the  fall  of  Forts  Mifflin  and  Mercer  the 
American  fleet  was  left  without  support.  At 
a  council  of  war  held  on  board  the  sloop 
"  Speedwell "  on  November  19,  it  was  decid 
ed  to  pass  Philadelphia  with  the  fleet  in  the 
night  and  gain  a  point  of  safety  to  the  north 
ward  of  the  city.  Thirteen  galleys,  twelve 
armed  boats,  the  brig  "Convention,"  and  a 
number  of  minor  craft  passed  the  city  with 
out  receiving  a  shot.  Before  the  ship 
"Montgomery,"  schooner  " Delaware," float 
ing  batteries  "Arnold"  and  "Putnam," 
and  several  Continental  vessels  could  get 
under  sail,  the  wind  died  away;  and  thus 
becalmed  it  was  found  necessary  to  set  fire  to 
them  in  order  to  prevent  their  capture.1 


1.  Wallace's  William  Bradford,  252-53, 
366-67;  Pennsylvania  Archives,  1st,  VI,  21, 
47-50. 


386  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

On  October  11,  1777,  Commodore  Hazel- 
wood  reported  a  capture  of  fifty-eight  pris 
oners.  About  seventy  men  were  killed  or 
wounded  in  the  different  actions  of  the  navy 
in  the  fall  of  1777.  Hazelwood  wrote  in 
October,  1777,  that  he  had  lost  two  hundred 
and  fifty  men  through  desertion  owing  to 
their  cowardice  and  disaffection;  and  in 
February,  1778,  that  a  great  many  men  had 
run  away  since  he  had  been  in  winter  quar 
ters.1 

Several  cases  of  the  desertion  of  commis 
sioned  officers  which  took  place  during  the 
campaign  on  the  Delaware,  were  tried  by 
courts-martial  during  the  summer  of  1778. 
First  Lieutenant  Samuel  Lyon  of  the  "  Dick 
inson  "  galley  was  charged  with  deserting  his 
vessel  and  going  over  to  the  enemy  with  seven 
men.  Lyon  pleaded  guilty  to  the  charge, 
and  a  court  of  fifteen  fellow  officers  sen 
tenced  him  "to  suffer  Death  by  being  Shott." 
On  September  1  Lyon,  together  with  Samuel 
Ford,  a  lieutenant  lately  attached  to  the 
"Effingham"  galley  who  also  had  been  con 
victed  of  desertion,  were  executed  on  one 
of  the  guard  boats  in  the  Delaware.  The 
first  conviction  for  a  capital  crime  in  the 
Pennsylvania  navy  is  said  to  have  been 
made  in  the  case  of  the  boatswain  of  the 
"Montgomery/'  who  was  sentenced  to  death 
for  desertion  on  June  25,  1778.  On  the  trial 

1.  Pennsylvania  Archives,  1st,  V,  063,721; 
VI,  235;  VII,  165. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution   387 

of  John  Lawrence  for  desertion,  a  gunner  on 
board  the  "  Dickinson"  galley,  the  accused 
acknowledged  that  he  "took  the  Oath  of 
Allegiance  to  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  and 
received  three  and  a  half  Guineas  for  his 
share  of  the  Boat  and  Arms/' which  he  as 
sisted  in  carrying  to  the  enemy.  The  court 
sentenced  him  to  "suffer  Death  by  being 
hung  with  a  Rope  around  his  Neck  till  he  is 
Dead,  Dead,  Dead."  Lawrence  together 
with  the  lieutenant  of  the  galley  "Ranger" 
were  reprieved  on  September  1,  1778.1  These 
desertions  from  the  Pennsylvania  navy  are 
but  one  instance  of  many  which  prove  that 
it  was  without  esprit  de  corps,  and  that  its 
officers  and  men  were  often  raw,  undisci 
plined,  and  insubordinate.  Used  to  a  free 
and  easy  life,  they  did  not  take  kindly  to  the 
routine  and  discipline  of  the  naval  service. 
During  the  winter  of  1777-1 778  when  the 
British  were  in  Philadelphia,  the  navy  and 
Navy  Board  were  some  miles  up  the  Dela 
ware.  A  few  members  of  the  Board  con 
tinued  to  hold  its  sessions  at  Bordentown, 
Trenton,  or  other  convenient  points.  The 
navy  was  disorganized  at  this  time,  and  the 
work  of  the  Board  was  naturally  dull  and 
disheartening.  In  January,  1778,  William 
Bradford,  its  chairman,  wrote  from  Trenton 
to  President  Wharton  of  the  Supreme  Ex 
ecutive  Council:  "I  am  left  here  alone,  none 


1.      Pennsylvania  Archives,   2nd,  I,  425-31. 


388  A'ary  of  the  American  Revolution 

of  the  Board  being  with  me.  I  am  also 
tired  of  being;  here,  had  much  rather  be  in 
action  with  the  Militia."1 

In  April,  1778,  the  Navy  Board,  acting 
reluctantly  on  Washington's  advice  who 
feared  that  the  British  would  make  a  raid 
and  capture  the  fleet,  dismantled  and  sank 
all  or  nearly  all  of  the  state  craft  in  the 
Delaware  river.2  On  May  8  the  British 
made  their  expected  foray  on  the  shipping 
to  the  northward  of  Philadelphia,  and  de 
stroyed  some  forty-five  vessels,  among  which 
were  the  two  Continental  frigates,  "  Effing- 
ham"  and  "  Washington,"  and  probably  a 
few  of  the  minor  craft  belonging  to  the  Penn 
sylvania  navy.3 

As  soon  as  the  British  received  intelligence 
of  the  sailing  of  a  French  fleet  under  D'Est- 
aing  for  America,  they  prepared  to  evacuate 
Philadelphia.  In  anticipation  of  this  event 
Hazel  wood  was  in  June  raising  and  refitting 
his  fleet,  and  wishing  that  he  had  it  in  his 
"power  to  give  the  enemy  a  scouring  before 
they  got  out  of  the  river."  On  July  19  he 
reported  his  vessels  afloat  and  ready  for  use. 
Already  the  Supreme  Executive  Council  had 
ordered  the  navy  to  be  put  into  commission, 
and  the  brig  " Convention"  to  make  a  cruise 
down  the  Bay. 

The  Pennsylvania  navy  had  cost  the  state 


1       Pennsylvania  Archives,  1st,  VI,  204. 

2.  Ibid.,  332-33. 

3.  Almon's   Remembrancer,    1778,   148-50. 


Nary  of  the  American  Revolution   389 

at  the  rate  of  £100,000  a  year.1  It  had  been 
serviceable  in  defending  the  Delaware,  but 
it  had  in  the  end  failed  to  hold  it.  Always 
hampered  by  a  lack  of  seamen,  of  naval  sup 
plies,  and  of  an  armed  force  comparable  to 
that  of  the  enemy,  the  Navy  Board  found 
the  greatest  difficulty  in  enforcing  the  orders 
of  the  Council.  It  was  naturally  blamed 
for  a  part  of  the  inactivity  and  the  misfor 
tunes  of  the  fleet.  Since  the  British  had 
abandoned  Philadelphia,  and  a  strong 
French  fleet  was  in  American  waters,  the 
need  for  a  naval  defence  of  the  Delaware 
seemed  more  remote  than  it  did  in  the  first 
years  of  the  Revolution.  These  considera 
tions  moved  the  Supreme  Executive  Coun 
cil  on  August  14,  1778,  to  recommend  to  the 
General  Assembly  the  dismissal  of  the  Navy 
Board,  and  all  the  officers  and  men  of  the 
navy,  except  those  that  were  necessary  to  man 
two  or  three  galleys,  two  or  three  guard  boats, 
and  the  brig  "Convention."  The  General 
Assembly  at  once  agreed  to  the  recommend 
ation.  Finally,  on  Friday,  December  11, 
the  following  vessels  were  sold  at  the  "Cof 
fee  House"  in  Philadelphia:  "Ten  galleys, 
Nine  armed  Boats,  the  Brig  'Convention/ 
the  sloops  'Speedwell/  'Sally/  'Industry/ 
and  'Black  Duck;'  and  the  schooner 
'Lvdia.'"2 


1.  Scharf  and  Westcott,  History  of  Phila 
delphia,  I,  300. 

2.  Colonial  Records  of  Pennsylvania,    XI, 


390  lYaz'v  of  the  American  Revolution 


In  March,  1779,  there  remained  in  the 
navy  six  small  craft,  namely,  the  galleys 
" Franklin,"  " Hancock,"  and  "Chatham," 
and  the  armed  boats,  "Lion,"  "Fame"  and 
"Viper;"  and  there  were  still  in  commission 
five  captains,  six  lieutenants,  and  one  hun 
dred  and  eighteen  men.1  This  little  fleet 
was  quite  insufficient  to  protect  the  com 
merce  of  the  state.  In  March,  1779,  the 
Supreme  Executive  Council,  in  response  to 
a  petition  from  the  merchants  of  Philadelphia 
praying  for  the  protection  of  their  trade, 
purchased  the  ship  "General  Greene,"  at  a 
cost  of  £53,000;  and  placed  it  in  charge  of 
two  agents,  who  were  to  fit  it  for  sea,  and  re 
ceive  and  dispose  of  its  prizes.  Part  of  the 
money  which  was  used  in  fitting  the  "Gen 
eral  Greene,"  14,  was  raised  by  private  sub 
scription.  During  the  summer  and  fall  of 
1779  the  new  ship,  under  the  command  of 
Captain  James  Montgomery,  cruised  along 
the  Atlantic  coast  between  Sandy  Hook  and 
the  Virginia  Capes  either  alone,  in  company 
with  the  Continental  frigates,  "Boston," 
"Deane,"  and  Confederacy,"  or  in  company 
with  the  well-known  Philadelphia  privateer, 

Minutes  of  Supreme  Executive  Council,  Au 
gust  14,  August  16,  December  9,  1778.  The 
capture  of  the  sloop  "Active"  by  the  "Con 
vention"  in  the  fall  of  1778,  gave  rise  to  the 
most  celebrated  prize  case  of  the  Revolution. 
— Jameson,  Essays  in  Constitutional  History 
of  United  States,  17-21. 

1.      Pennsylvania  Archives,  2nd,  I,  255. 


Naz'v  of  tlic  American  Revolution  391 

"Holker."  The  "  General  Greene"  was 
quite  fortunate,  as  she  sent  into  Philadel 
phia  six  prizes.  In  the  spring  before  a  full 
complement  of  men  could  be  enlisted,  Presi 
dent  Reed  of  the  Supreme  Executive  Coun 
cil  was  compelled  to  lay  an  embargo  on 
privateers.  Her  crew  were  a  mutinous  rab 
ble.  In  June  Captain  Montgomery  wrote 
that  he  had  arrived  at  New  Castle  with  a 
"Great  number  of  Prisoners  on  board  and  a 
Great  Part  of  my  own  Crew  Such  Villons 
that  they  would  be  glad  of  an  opportunity 
to  take  the  Ship  from  me.  Som  of  the  Ring 
leaders  I  have  sent  up  in  Irons."  On  Oc 
tober  27  the  Council  ordered  the  "General 
Greene"  to  be  sold,  as  this  was  more  econ 
omical  than  laying  her  up  for  the  winter. 
Her  sale,  much  below  her  real  value,  arous 
ed  suspicions  of  collusion  and  corruption.1 

Naval  legislation  in  Pennsylvania  was  not 
extensive.  In  1775,  1776,  and  1777  almost 
all  naval  rules  and  provisions  were  estab 
lished  by  executive  decrees.  Before  the 
middle  of  January,  1776,  the  Committee  of 
Safety  had  established  courts  for  the  trying 
of  prize  cases.2  It  permitted  appeals  from 
the  state  prize  courts  to  Congress.  On  Sep 
tember  9,  1778,  however,  the  General  As- 

1.  Pennsylvania     Archives,    1st,   VII,   320, 
47G;    Colonial    Records  of  Pennsylvania,   XI, 
724,  750;  XII,  150;  Scharf  and  Westcott,  His 
tory  of  Philadelphia,  I,  403. 

2.  J.  F.  Jameson,  Essays  in  Constitutional 
History  of  United  States,  9. 


392  A'ary  of  the  American  Revolution 

sembly  established  a  Court  of  Admiralty.  A 
law  passed  in  1780  provided  that  a  judge  of 
admiralty  should  be  appointed  and  com 
missioned  for  seven  years  by  the  Supreme 
Executive  Council.1  On  September  17, 

1777,  an  act  was  passed  for  the  relief  of  of 
ficers,  seamen  and  marines,    who,  being  in 
the   service  of  the  United  States  and  resi 
dents  of  Pennsylvania,  should  be  disabled 
from  earning  a  livelihood.  In  all  probability 
this  was  passed  in  accordance  with  the  rec 
ommendations  of  the  Continental  Congress 
of  August  26,  1776.     On  March  1,  1780,  the 
General  Assembly  granted  officers,  seamen, 
and  marines  in  the  Pennsylvania  navy,  who 
were  in  actual  service  on  March  13,  1779, 
and  who  should  continue  therein  until  the 
end  of  the  war,  half-pay  for  life.2 

It  is  believed  that  Pennsylvania  did  not 
establish  state  privateering.  Her  execu 
tives  in  commissioning  privateers  in  all 
probability  followed  the  regulations  of  Con 
gress.  The  Pennsylvania  Archives  contain 
a  list  of  448  privateering  commissions  issued 
for  the  years  from  1776  to  1782.  Most  of  the 
privateers  were  small  vessels,  mounting  six 
to  twelve  cannon,  and  carrying  twenty-five 
to  fifty  men.  Out  of  the  448  commissions, 
only  14  commissions  were  for  vessels  mount 
ing  twenty  or  more  guns.  In  1779  Penn- 

1.  Laws    of    Pennsylvania,     September    9, 

1778,  March  8,  1780. 

2.  Ibid.,    September    17,    1777;    March    1, 
1780. 


Nary  of  the  American  Revolution  393 

sylvania  issued  commissions  for  one  hun 
dred  different  vessels.1 

The  spring  of  1782  was  marked  by  a  re 
newal  in  naval  enterprise  similar  to  that  in 
the  spring  of  1779.  Armed  ships,  refugee 
boats,  and  picaropli  privateers  fitted  out  at>  /?" 
New  York,  had  been  greatly  distressing  the 
shipping  and  trade  of  Philadelphia.  Within 
eight  months  the  British  frigate  "Medea" 
had  taken  nine  Philadelphia  privateers;  the 
whale-boat  "Trimmer"  from  New  York  had 
been  very  destructive  to  the  shipping  on  the 
Delaware;  and  the  British  naval  ship  "Gen 
eral  Monk,"  formerly  the  American  priva 
teer  "Washington,"  was  inflicting  serious 
losses  on  Pennsylvania's  commerce.2  The 
merchants  and  traders  of  Philadelphia  now 
appealed  by  petition  to  the  General  Assem 
bly  for  protection.  Accordingly,  on  April 
9,  that  body  appointed  three  commissioners 
to  procure  and  equip  a  naval  armament  for 
the  defence  of  Delaware  river  and  bay.  The 
commissioners  were  authorized  to  borrow 
£50,000,  which  was  to  be  repaid  from  certain 
old  tonnage  and  impost  duties,  and  from  a 
new  impost  on  certain  specified  articles. 
The  act  also  provided  for  a  distribution  of 
the  proceeds  of  prizes.  Thie  act  is  signifi 
cant  in  its  being  the  first  instance  where  the 
General  Assembly  authorized  a  naval  in 
crease  and  appointed  a  committee  to  take 

1.  Pennsylvania  Archives,  2nd,  I,  388-402. 

2.  Scharf  and  Westcott,  History  of  Phila 
delphia,  I,  421-22. 


394  Ara£'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

charge  of  naval  vessels.  It  met  with  con 
siderable  disfavor.  The  Supreme  Executive 
Council  informed  the  General  Assembly  that 
it  considered  the  appointment  of  commis 
sioners  and  the  conferring  upon  them  of  full 
administrative  powers  unconstitutional  and 
an  encroachment  of  the  legislative  on  the 
administrative  body.1 

Anticipating  the  act  of  the  legislature,  the 
merchants  of  Philadelphia  had  fitted  out 
the  ship  "Hyder  Ally,"  18,  and  had  ap 
pointed  Lieutenant  Joshua  Barney  of  the 
Continental  navy  to  command  her.  Pro 
ceeding  down  the  Bay,  Barney  on  April  8 
made  his  memorable  capture  of  the  "  Gen 
eral  Monk/'  18,  Captain  Josias  Rogers.  Both 
the  "  Hyder  Ally"  and  the  "General  Monk" 
were  now  taken  into  the  service  of  the  state. 
The  "General  Monk/'  which  was  renamed 
the  "Washington/'  was  in  May,*  1782, 
loaned  to  Robert  Morris,  the  Continental 
Agent  of  Marine,  who  sent  her  on  a  commer 
cial  errand  to  the  Westlndies.  On  the  return 
of  the  "Washington."  Morris  purchased 
hrr  for  the  service  of  Congress.  The  "  Hyder 
All}7"  under  different  commanders  cruised 
for  the  rest  of  the  year  with  little  suc 
cess.  In  December  the  commissioners  ob- 

1.  Laws  of  Pennsylvania,  April  9,  April  15, 
1782;  Mary  Barney,  Memoirs  of  Commodore 
Barney,  303-04.  Pennsylvania  Archives,  1st, 
IX,  531-32.  The  three  Commissioners  were 
John  Patton,  Francis  Gurney,  and  William 
Allibone,. 


Nary  of  the  American  Revolution   395 

tained  permission  from  the  Supreme  Exec 
utive  Council  to  sell  her,  and  build  a  vessel 
of  more  suitable  construction  for  the  defence 
of  the  Delaware,  for  which  purpose  they 
were  already  equipping  an  armed  schooner. 
When  the  "  Hyder  Ally  "  was  offered  for  sale, 
the  commissioners  bid  her  in  for  the  state, 
as  the  bidders  refused  to  give  her  full  value.1 
The  establishment  of  officers  and  seamen 
on  board  the  "Hyder  Ally"  and  the  "Wash 
ington"  was  a  new  one.  On  February  13, 
17811  the  officers  and  seamen  of  the  first 
^establishment  were  all  discharged,  except 
Captain  Boys  and  certain  disabled  seamen; 
and  on  December  20  Boys  was  dismissed, 
since  the  service  in  which  he  was  engaged  was 
at  an  end.2  When  peace  was  declared  in 
the  spring  of  1783,  a  few  men  were  prob 
ably  in  naval  employ  under  the  new  estab 
lishment.  That  the  state  still  owned  a  few 
small  vessels  is  certain.  On  April  10,  1783, 
the  Supreme  Executive  Council  endorsed  a 
letter  from  the  commissioners  saying  "that 
as  no  doubt  appears  to  remain  that  Hostili 
ties  are  ceased,  we  conceive  it  our  Duty  to 
request  your  permission  to  dispose  of  the 
Armed  vessels  under  our  direction  belonging 
to  the  State,  in  order  to  enable  us  to  close 
our  accounts  with  the  Public."3 

1.  Colonial  Records'of  Pennsylvania,  XIII, 
Minutes   of   Supreme   Executive   Council,    De 
cember  6,  1782. 

2.  Pennsylvania  Archives,  2nd,  I,  256. 

3.  Ibid.,  1st,  X.  26. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE  NAVY  OF  VIRGINIA 

In  July,  1775,  Virginia  began  to  raise  and 
officer  an  army  of  more  than  one  thousand 
men.  By  fall  Lord  Dunmore,  the  Provin 
cial  Governor  of  Virginia,  who  in  June  had 
retreated  to  His  Majesty's  ship  "Fowey"  at 
Yorktown,  had  collected  a  small  flotilla, 
and  had  begun  a  series  of  desultory  attacks 
upon  the  river  banks  of  Virginia.  On  Octo 
ber  25  he  was  repulsed  at  Hampton ;  on  De 
cember  9  he  was  beaten  by  the  Virginia  pa 
triots  at  Great  Ridge;  and  on  January  1  he 
burned  Norfolk.  His  movements  excited 
so  much  alarm  that  the  leading  patriot  fam 
ilies  on  the  James,  York,  Rappahannock, 
and  Potomac  rivers  retreated  inland  for 
safety.  In  order  to  prevent  the  depreda 
tions  of  Lord  Dunmore,  and  to  provide  ef 
fectually  for  the  general  defence  of  the  state, 
the  Virginia  Provincial  Convention  in  De 
cember  authorized  the  Committee  of  Safety 
of  the  state  "to  provide  from  time  to  time 
such  and  so  many  armed  vessels  as  they 
may  judge  necessary  for  the  protection  of 
the  several  rivers  in  this  colony,  in  the  best 


A'tfi'y  of  the  American  Revolution  397 

manner  the  circumstances  of  the  country 
will  admit/'  The  Committee  of  Safety  was 
further  directed  to  raise  a  sufficient  number 
of  officers,  sailors,  and  marines;  and  settle 
their  pay,  which  was  not  to  exceed  certain 
specified  rates.  The  maximum  wage 
of  "the  chief  commander  of  the  W7hole  as 
commodore"  was  fixed  at  fifteen  shillings  a 
day.1 

Between  December,  1775,  and  July,  1776, 
the  Committee  of  Safety  procured  and  es 
tablished  a  small  navy.  On  April  1  it  fixed 
the  naval  pay,  generally  at  the  maximum 
rates  permitted.  Captains  in  the  navy 
were  to  receive  a  daily  wage  of  8s. ;  captains 
of  marines,  6s.;  midshipmen,  3s.;  marines, 
Is.,  6d.  The  Committee  resolved  that  two 
years  ought  to  be  a  maximum  period  of  serv 
ice.  It  appointed  a  number  of  the  most 
prominent  officers  in  the  Virginia  navy, 
among  whom  were  Captains  James  Barron, 
Richard  Barron,  Richard  Taylor,  Thomas 
Lilly,  and  Edward  Travis.  It  fixed  the  rel 
ative  rank  between  army  and  navy  officers. 
It  purchased  the  boats  "Liberty"  and  "Pa 
triot,"  the  brigs  "Liberty"  and  "Adven 
ture,"  and  the  schooner  "Adventure."  It 
contracted  for  the  construction  of  a  num 
ber  of  galleys  on  the  different  rivers  of  the 
state.2 


1.  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX,  83. 

2.  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  VIII, 
75-240,    Journal    of    Committee    of    Safety    of 


398  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

George  Mason  and  John  Dalton  were  ap 
pointed  a  committee  to  build  two  row-gal 
leys,  and  buy  three  cutters  for  the  defence  of 
the  Potomac.  In  April,  1776,  Mason  wrote 
that  the  galleys  were  well  under  way,  and 
that  three  small  vessels  had  been  purchased, 
of  which  the  largest  was  a  fine  stout  craft  of 
about  110  tons  burden,  mounting  fourteen 
8's  and  4's,  carrying  ninety-six  men,  and 
named  the  "American  Congress. "  A  com 
pany  of  marines  for  this  vessel,  he  said, 
were  being  exercised  in  the  use  of  the  great 
guns.1  The  Committee  of  Safety  chose  a 
"Lieutenant  of  Marines  in  the  Potomac  river 
Department." 

The  Provincial  Convention  of  Virginia, 
which  met  at  Williamsburg  on  May  6,  1776, 
being  convinced  that  the  naval  prepara 
tions  would  be  conducted  more  expedi- 
tiously  and  successfully  if  proper  persons 
were  appointed  to  superintend  and  di 
rect  the  same,  chose  a  Board  of  Naval  Com 
missioners,  consisting  of  five  persons.2  The 

Virginia,  February  7  to  July  5,  1776.  Vir 
ginia  had  a  class  of  vessels  which  she  referred 
to  as  "armed  boats."  They  were  smart  craft, 
and  appear  to  have  been  schooner-rigged. 

1.  Miss   Rowland's  George  Mason,  I,   214, 
218. 

2.  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX,  149-51. 
The   Provincial   Convention   which    met     May 
0,  1776,  adopted  a  Constitution  which  provided 
for  a  Legislature  of  two  houses,  and  an  Execu 
tive    consisting    of    a    Governor   and    a    Privy 
Council  of  eight  members. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  399 

Board  was  authorized  to  appoint  .a  clerk 
and  assistants,  and  to  elect  from  their  mem 
bership  a  First  Commissioner  of  the  Navy— 
the  title  of  a  well-known  officer  in  the  Eng 
lish  naval  service.  No  member  of  the 
Board  could  sit  in  the  legislature  or  hold  a 
military  office.  Each  Commissioner  was  to 
receive  twenty  shillings  a  day,  when  em 
ployed.  On  the  depreciation  of  the  cur 
rency  this  was  doubled.1  A  majority  of  the 
Board  constituted  a  quorum.  Thomas 
Whiting  served  as  First  Commissioner  of 
the  Board  throughout  its  existence. 

In  general,  the  business  of  the  Navy 
Board  was  "to  superintend  and  direct  all 
matters  and  things  to  the  navy  relating." 
It  had  charge  of  the  building,  purchase,  fit 
ting,  arming,  provisioning,  and  repairing  of 
all  armed  vessels  and  transports.  It  had 
charge  of  the  shipyards  and  the  public  rope- 
walk.  In  case  of  vacancies  in  the  navy  or 
marines  it  recommended  officers  to  the  Gov 
ernor  and  Council.  It  could  suspend  an  of 
ficer  for  neglect  of  duty  or  for  misbehavior. 
It  was  to  keep  itself  informed  on  the  state 
of  the  navy  through  reports  from  the  na 
val  officers.  It  was  authorized  to  draw 
warrants  on  the  treasury  for  money  ex 
pended  in  the  naval  department,  and  to 
audit  the  naval  accounts. 

The  Navy  Board  had  charge  of  naval  af- 

1.  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX,  521-22' 
Octobe:  session  of  General  Assembly  in  1778' 


400  A'az'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

fairs  in  Virginia  for  three  years,  from  the 
summer  of  1776  until  the  summer  of  1779. 
During  1776  and  1777  vessels  were  built  on 
the  Eastern  Shore  of  Virginia,  on  the  Po 
tomac,  Rappahannock,  Mattapony,  Chick- 
ahominy,  and  James  rivers,  and  at  Ports 
mouth,  Gosport,  and  South  Quay.  After 
1777  vessels  were  chiefly  built  at  the  Chick- 
ahominy  and  Gosport  shipyards.  No  other 
state  owned  so  much  land,  property,  and 
manufactories,  devoted  to  naval  purposes, 
as  Virginia.  In  April,  1777,  the  Navy 
Board  purchased  115  acres  of  land,  for  £595, 
on  the  Chickahominy,  twelve  miles  from  its 
confluence  with  the  James.1  On  this  site 
was  located  the  Chickahominy  shipyard. 
Virginia's  ships  found  here  a  safer  retreat 
than  at  Gosport,  which  lay  convenient  for 
the  enemy's  ships.  It  is  said  that  before 
the  Revolution  the  British  had  established 
a  marine  yard  at  Gosport,  and  named  it  for 
Gosport,  England,  where  many  supplies  for 
the  Royal  Navy  were  manufactured.  In 
some  way  Virginia  came  into  possession  of 
the  shipyard  at  this  place.2  Two  ships  were 
built  for  the  defence  of  Ocracoke  Inlet,  the 
chief  entrance  to  Albemarle  Sound,  at 
South  Quay,  on  the  Blackwater,  a  few  miles 
north  of  the  North  Carolina  line. 

1.  Southern  Literary  Messenger,    1857,    14. 
The  references  to  this  magazine  refer  to  a  series 
of    valuable    articles    entitled    "The    Virginia 
Navy  of  the  Revolution." 

2.  E.  P.  Lull,  History  of  U.  S.  Navy  Yard, 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  401 

At  Warwick,  on  the  James,  a  few  miles 
below  Richmond,  the  state  built  and  op 
erated  a  rope-walk.  The  state  owned  a 
manufactory  of  sail-duck  and  a  foundry. 
In  July,  1776,  four  naval  magazines  \vere 
established,  one  each  for  the  James,  York, 
Rappahannock,  and  Potomac  rivers.  For 
each  magazine  one  or  two  agents  were  ap 
pointed  to  collect  and  issue  provisions, 
ships'  supplies,  and  naval  stores.1  For  the 
location  of  the  magazine  on  the  Potomac 
the  General  Assembly  authorized  the  Navy 
Board  to  purchase  an  acre  of  land  at  the 
head  of  "Potomack  Creek/'2  In  January, 
1777,  the  Navy  Board  appointed  James 
Maxwell,  Naval  Agent,  to  superintend  the 
shipyards,  and  the  building,  rigging,  equip 
ping,  and  repairing  of  the  naval  vessels.  Ke 
was  to  follow  the  instructions  of  the  Board, 
and  keep  it  informed  on  the  state  of  the 
navy.3  Maxwell's  annual  salary  was  £300, 
payable  quarterly.  He  lived  at  the  Chick- 
ahominy  shipyard. 

Virginia  had  a  naval  staff  consisting  of 
pay  masters,  muster  masters,  surgeons,  and 
chaplains.  The  captains  and  recruiting  of- 

at  Gosport,  Virginia,  8-11;  Hening, 
of  Virginia,  XI,  407. 

1.  Journals  of  Virginia   Navy   Board,   Vir 
ginia  State  Archives,  June  25,  June  26,  1776. 

2.  Hening,    Statutes   of  Virginia,    IX,  235- 
36. 

3.  Journals  of  Virginia    Navy  Board,   Janu 
ary  7,  1777. 


Statutes 


402  Nai'v  of  the  American  Revolution 

ficers  enlisted  seamen.  Their  task  was  ren 
dered  difficult,  not  so  much  because  of 
the  superior  attractions  of  privateering,  as 
in  New  England,  as  because  of  the  small 
number  of  seamen  resident  in  the  state. 
The  first  commodore  of  the  Virginia  navy 
was  John  Henry  Boucher.  He  was  serving 
as  lieutenant  in  the  Maryland  navy,  when, 
in  March,  1776,  Virginia  called  him  to  the 
command  of  her  Potomac  fleet,  and  soon 
promoted  him  to  the  head  of  her  navy.1  He 
served  as  commodore  for  only  a  few  months, 
resigning  in  November,  1776.  Walter 
Brooke  was  commodore  from  April,  1777, 
until  September,  1778.  Brooke's  successor, 
James  Barron,  was  not  appointed  until 
July,  1780;  he  served  until  the  end  of  the 
war.  The  commodore  of  the  navy  made 
his  headquarters  regularly  at  or  about 
Hampton,  and  superintended  the  armed 
vessels  in  that  part  of  the  state.2 

In  Virginia,  as  in  the  other  states  and  in 
the  Continental  Congress,  naval  enthusiasm 
and  interest  was  at  its  height  in  1776.  In 
the  fall  the  Navy  Board  contracted  for  the 
building  of  twenty-four  small  transports.3 
The  General  Assembly  in  its  October  ses 
sion  authorized  the  Navy  Board  to  con- 

T      Maryland  Archives,  XI,  293-94. 

2.  Journals  of  Virginia  Navy  Board;  State 
Navy  Papers,  I ;  Southern  Literary  Messenger, 
1857,  3. 

3.  Journal  of  Virginia   Navy   Board,   Sep 
tember,  October,  1776. 


Nai'y  of  the  American  Revolution  403 

struct  two  frigates  of  thirty- two  guns  each, 
and  four  large  galleys,  adapted  "for  river 
or  sea  service."  For  manning  these  galleys 
and  those  already  building,  the  Navy  Board 
was  empowered  to  raise  thirteen  hundred 
men,  exclusive  of  officers,  to  serve  three 
years  from  March  3,  1777.  It  was  to  rec 
ommend  proper  officers  to  the  Governor  and 
Council.  Having  been  commissioned  by 
the  Governor,  the  officers  were  to  enlist  the 
crews  for  their  respective  galleys.  Since  to 
secure  a  sufficient  number  of  experienced 
seamen  would  be  impossible,  it  was  provided 
that  each  crew  should  consist  of  three  classes 
of  men:  able  seamen,  at  a  daily  wage  of  3s. ; 
ordinary  seamen,  at  2s. ;  and  common  lands 
men,  at  Is.,  6d.  As  the  men  in  the  second 
and  third  classes  became  proficient,  they 
were  to  be  promoted.  Every  recruit  was 
given  a  bounty  of  $20. * 

The  Provincial  Convention,  in  its  Decem 
ber  session  in  1775,  erected  a  Court  of  Ad 
miralty,  consisting  of  three  judges,  to  en 
force  the  Continental  Association  against 
trading  with  England.  In  its  May  session 
in  1776,  it  gave  this  court  jurisdiction  over 
all  captures  of  the  enemy's  vessels.  The 
General  Assembly,  at  its  October  session  in 
1776, superseded  all  previous  admiralty  legis- 

1.  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  IX,  196-97. 
In  August,  1776,  the  Navy  Board  drew  up  a 
list  of  naval  rules  which  were  endorsed  by  the 
Governor  and  Council. — Journals  of  Virginia 
Navy  Board,  August  2,  1776. 


404  A'az'3f  of  the  American  Revolution 

lation  by  an  "Act  for  Establishing  a  Court 
of  Admiralty."  Such  court  was  to  consist 
of  three  judges,  elected  by  joint  ballot  of 
the  two  houses  of  the  General  Assembly. 
The  judges  were  to  hold  their  offices  "for  so 
long  time  as  they  shall  demean  themselves 
well  therein."  The  court,  which  was  to  be 
held  at  some  place  to  be  fixed  by  the  Gen 
eral  Assembly,  was  to  have  cognizance  of 
"all  causes  heretofore  of  admiralty  juris 
diction  in  this  country."  Its  proceedings 
and  decisions  were  to  be  governed  by  the 
regulations  of  the  Continental  Congress,  the 
acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  the 
English  statutes  prior  to  the  fourth  year  of 
the  reign  of  James,  and  by  the  laws  of  Oleron 
and  the  Rhodian  and  Imperial  laws,  so  far 
as  they  have  been  heretofore  observed  in 
the  English  courts  of  admiralty.  In  cases 
which  related  to  captures  from  a  public 
enemy  with  whom  the  United  States  should 
be  at  war,  and  in  which  a  conflict  should 
arise  between  the  regulations  of  Congress 
and  the  acts  of  the  General  Assembly,  the 
regulations  of  Congress  should  take  prece 
dence;  in  all  other  cases  of  conflict,  the  acts 
of  Virginia  were  to  prevail.  This  provision 
is  of  particular  interest.  It  is  one  of  the 
first  instances  in  which  a  state  recognized 
the  superiority  of  federal  law  when  in  con 
flict  with  state  law.  Virginia  was  liberal 
in  granting  appeals  to  Congress,  as  she  per- 


Naz'v  of  the  American  Revolution  405 

mitted  them  in  all  cases  of  the  capture  of 
the  enemy's  vessels.1 

The  Admiralty  Court  of  Virginia  tried  few 
prize  cases.  Governor  Thomas  Jefferson 
in  writing  to  the  President  of  Congress  in 
June,  1779,  no  doubt  understates  the  truth 
when  he  says  that  "a  British  prize  would 
be  a  more  rare  phenomenon  here  than  a 
comet,  because  one  has  been  seen,  but  the 
other  never  was/'  His  state,  he  said,  had 
long  suffered  from  a  lack  of  blank  letters  of 
marque,  and  he  wished  fifty  to  be  sent  to 
him.2  Virginia  did  not  establish  state  pri 
vateering,  but  followed  the  regulations  of 
Congress  on  the  subject.  Because  of  the 
lack  of  seamen  and  the  continual  presence 
of  the  enemy's  vessels  at  the  mouths  of  the 
Virginia  rivers,  the  privateering  interest 
was  not  important  in  this  state. 

The  Navy  Board  superintended  both  the 
trading  and  armed  vessels  of  the  state  un 
til  April,  1777,  when  the  trading  vessels 
were  placed  in  charge  of  William  Aylett.3 
Writers  on  the  Virginia  navy  have  not,  as  a 
rule,  distinguished  one  class  of  vessels  from 
the  other,  nor  is  it  always  easy  to  do  so. 
During  1776  seven  vessels  were  employed 


1.  Hening,    Statutes   of  Virginia,  IX,   103, 
131-32,  202-06. 

2.  Ford,  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  II, 
241-43. 

3.  Journals  of  Virginia  Navy  Board,  April 
8,  1777. 


406  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

chiefly  in  commerce.1  In  the  fall,  most  of 
them  were  ordered  to  the  West  Indies  with 
cargoes  of  flour  and  tobacco;  one,  the  brig 
"Adventure,"  was  directed  to  proceed  to 
Dunkirk,  France.  The  armed  fleet  for  1776 
consisted  of  sixteen  small  craft  adapted 
chiefly  for  service  in  the  rivers  of  Virginia 
and  in  Chesapeake  Bay.2  In  1777  the  gal 
leys  "Accomac"  and  "Diligence"  were  built 
and  stationed  on  the  Eastern  Shore;  and  the 
ships  "Caswell"  and  "Washington"  were 
built  at  South  Quay  on  the  Blackwater,  for 
the  defence  of  Ocracoke  Inlet,  which  Vir 
ginia  was  undertaking  jointly  with  North 
Carolina.  Besides  these  four  vessels,  two 
brigs,  one  armed  boat,  and  the  ships  "Glou 
cester,"  "Protector,"  "Dragon,"  and  "Tar 
tar,"  were  this  year  added  to  the  navy.  In 
1778  an  armed  boat  and  the  ships  "Tem- 

1.  These    vessels    were   the    brig    "Adven 
ture:"   the   schooners    "Hornet,"    "Peace   and 
Plenty,"    "Revenge,"    and    "Speedwell;"    the 
sloop  "Agatha;"  and  the  armed  boat  "Molly." 
The  lists  of  vessels  here  given  were  compiled 
from  the  Virginia  naval  archives. 

2.  These  vessels  were  the  galleys  "Henry," 
"Hero,"     "Lewis,"     "Manly,"     "Norfolk     Re 
venge,"   "Page,"  and  "Safeguard;"  the  brigs 
"Liberty,"  "Mosquito,"  "Northampton,"  and 
"Raleigh;"  the  schooners  "Liberty"  and  "Ad 
venture;"  the  sloop  "Scorpion;"  and  the  armed 
boats  ' '  Liberty' '  and  "  Patriot. ' '     The  schooner 
"Liberty"  was  taken  into  the  trading  fleet  as 
the  ' '  Hornet. "      It  is  believed  that  this  list  does 
not  contain  the  vessels  in   Mason's   Potomac 
fleet. 


Nai'v  of  the  American  Revolution  407 

pest"  and  "Thetis"  were  built;  and  in  1779 
two  armed  boats,  the  brig  "Jefferson"  and 
the  ship  "Virginia,"  were  added.1 

This  fleet  is  formidable  only  in  its  enumer 
ation.  It  was  poorly  armed,  incompletely 
manned,  and  in  almost  every  respect  ill 
fitted  for  service.  But  few  of  its  vessels 
went  beyond  the  Chesapeake  Bay.  It 
showed  most  activity  during  1776  and  the 
spring  of  1777.  From  1775  until  1779  fif 
teen  small  prizes  were  captured.  In  May, 
1776,  Captain  Taylor  seized  four  small  mer 
chantmen;  in  June,  one  of  the  Barrens 
brought  up  to  Jamestown  the  transport 
"Oxford,"  with  220  Highlanders  on  board; 
in  the  spring  of  1777  the  "Mosquito,"  Cap 
tain  Harris,  carried  into  St.  Pierre  the  ship 
"Noble,"  valued  at  75,000  livres;  and  a  few 
months  earlier  the  brig  "Liberty"  captured 
the  ship  "Jane,"  whose  cargo  of  West  India 
goods  was  valued  at  £6,000.  These  were 
the  most  fortunate  captures  made  by  the 
Virginia  navy.2 

1  The  names  of  the  vessels  not  mentioned 
in  the  text,  which  were  added  during  1777, 
1778,  and  1779  were  the  brigs  "Greyhound'5 
and  "Hampton"  and  the  armed  boats  ""Nichol 
son,"  "Experiment,"  "Fly,"  and  "Dolphin." 
The  names  of  several  other  vessels  which  were 
probably  used  in  trade,  occur  during  this  peri 
od.  Some  of  the  ships  are  at  times  referred 
to  as  galleys. 

2.  Files  of  Virginia  Gazette;  Journals  of 
Virginia  Convention,  May  8,  1776;  Virginia 


408  A'a-rv  of  the  American  Revolution 

Virginia's  naval  craft  met  with  the  usual 
misfortunes.  During  the  first  half  of  1777 
His  Majesty's  ship  " Ariadne"  captured  the 
"Mosquito."  About  the  same  time  the 
frigate  "Phoenix"  took  the  "Raleigh."  The 
British  made  two  raids  into  Virginia  which 
were  destructive  both  to  the  shipping  of  the 
state  and  to  private  individuals.  The  first 
was  ordered  by  Clinton  in  the  spring  of 
1779;  the  troops  were  under  the  command 
of  Matthews  and  Collier.  At  the  Gosport 
shipyard  they  destroyed  five  uncompleted 
vessels,  three  of  which  were  frigates,  besides 
a  large  quantity  of  masts,  yards,  timber, 
plank,  iron,  and  other  ships'  stores.  The 
shipyards  on  the  Nansemond  were  looted; 
and  twenty-two  vessels  with  a  considerable 
quantity  of  powder  were  taken  or  destroyed 
on  the  "South  Branch  of  the  navy."  Suf 
folk  was  burned,  and  upwards  of  two  thou 
sand  barrels  of  Continental  pork  and  fifteen 
hundred  barrels  of  flour  were  destroyed.  In 
all  one  hundred  and  thirty  vessels  were 
burned.1  The  raid  of  Arnold  and  Phillips 
will  be  considered  later. 

The  General  Assembly  at  its  May  session 
in  1779  discontinued  the  Navy  Board,  and 

Historical  Register  I,  77;  Calendar  of  Virginia 
State  Papers,  III,  365. 

1.  Almon's  Remembrancer,  1779,  289-95, 
account  given  by  British  officers;  Records  of 
State  of  North  Carolina,  XIV,  85-86,  94-95. 
Some  of  the  vessels  destroyed  at  Gosport  prob 
ably  belonged  to  Congress. 


Nai'v  of  t/ic  American  Revolution  409 

vested  its  strictly  naval  duties  with  the 
newly  created  Board  of  War,  consisting  of 
five  members.  The  Board  of  War  was  em 
powered  to  appoint  a  Naval  Commissioner. 
A  Board  of  Trade  was  now  given  charge  of 
the  trading  vessels  of  the  state,  and  of  the 
state  manufactories  of  military  supplies.1 

The  General  Assembly  in  its  May  session, 
1780,  "for  the  purpose  of  introducing  oecon- 
omy  into  all  the  various  departments  of 
government,  and  for  conducting  the  publick 
business  with  the  greatest  expedition/'  abol 
ished  the  Boards  of  War  and  Trade,  and 
authorized  the  Governor  to  appoint  a  Com 
missioner  of  War,  a  Commercial  Agent,  and 
coordinate  with  these  two,  a  Commissioner 
of  the  Navy.  This  act  is  the  outgrowth  of 
the  same  movement  for  economy  and  effi 
ciency  in  administration,  which  resulted  in 
the  establishment  in  January  and  Febru 
ary,  1781,  of  the  single-headed  executive 
departments  of  the  Continental  Congress. 
The  salary  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  Navy 
was  fixed  at  thirty  thousand  pounds  of  to 
bacco  a  year,  and  that  of  his  clerk  at  ten 
thousand  pounds.2  The  Commissioner  was 
to  be  under  the  "controul  and  direction  of 
the  governour  and  council."  Governor 
Jefferson  appointed  James  Maxwell,  the 
naval  agent  under  the  Navy  Board,  Com 
missioner  of  the  Navy. 

1.  Hening,    Statutes    of    Virginia,   X,     15- 
18,   123. 

2.  Ibid.,  278,  291-92. 


4io  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

The  General  Assembly  in  the  May  session 
of  1779,  as  an  inducement  to  enlistment, 
granted  seamen  and  marines  additional 
bounties  and  pensions.  Recruits  entering 
for  the  rest  of  the  war  were  now  to  receive 
$750  and  one  hundred  acres  of  land.  They 
were  to  be  furnished  upon  enlistment,  and 
once  a  year  thereafterwards,  with  a  com 
plete  suit  of  clothes.  Naval  officers  were  en 
titled  to  a  "grant  of  the  like  quantity  of 
lands  as  is  allowed  to  officers  of  the  same 
rank  in  the  Virginia  regiments  on  continen 
tal  establishment."  Disabled  sailors  and 
the  widows  of  the  slain  were  entitled  to  im 
mediate  relief,  and  an  annual  pension.  At 
the  October  session  of  this  year,  moved  by 
the  need  for  money  and  the  impossibility 
of  fitting  out  the  whole  fleet,  the  General 
Assembly  ordered  the  governor  to  sell  nine 
of  the  armed  vessels,  and  to  equip  and  man 
the  remaining  six  with  all  diligence.  For 
some  reason  the  governor  did  not  carry  out 
the  order.  There  was  probably  little  mar 
ket  for  the  vessels.1 

The  years  1780  and  1781  were  marked  by 
a  renewed  naval  activity  in  Virginia.  It 
is  recalled  that  the  theater  of  war  had  now 
shifted  to  the  Southern  states.  Savannah 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  enemy.  Charleston 
surrendered  in  May,  1780.  By  the  fall  of  that 
year  the  lowlands  of  the  states  to  the  south 
of  Virginia  were  generally  in  the  possession 

~T Hening,  IX,  537;  X,  23-24,  217. 


Xavy  of  the  American  Revolution  411 

of  the  British.  Apparently  Virginia  would 
be  the  next  to  feel  the  rough  hand  of  the 
conquering  enemy.  British  privateers  and 
naval  craft  lay  off  the  mouths  of  the  Vir 
ginia  rivers,  and  captured  all  her  vessels  that 
ventured  towards  the  Bay  or  the  sea.  Early 
in  1780  it  was  apprehended  that  the  enemy 
meditated  an  invasion  of  the  coasts  of  the 
state. 

When  the  General  Assembly  came  to 
gether  in  May,  1780,  it  at  once  took  meas 
ures  for  the  protection  of  the  coasts.  It 
passed  "an  act  for  putting  the  eastern  fron 
tier  of  this  commonwealth  into  a  posture 
of  defence."  This  act,  after  providing  for 
calling  out  the  militia  in  the  seaport  coun 
ties,  ordered  the  Governor  and  Council  to  di 
rect  the  Commissioner  of  the  Navy  to  imme 
diately  make  ready  for  service  in  the  Bay 
and  on  the  seacoast  the  ships  "Thetis," 
"Tempest/7  and  "Dragon,"  the  brig  "Jeffer 
son,"  and  the  galleys  "Henry,"  "Accomac," 
and  "Diligence."  Three  hundred  marines, 
to  be  commanded  by  five  captains  and  fif 
teen  lieutenants,  were  to  be  recruited.  Ma 
rines  and  sailors  who  enlisted  for  three  years 
were  to  receive  a  bounty  of  $1,000.  Naval 
officers  were  put  upon  the  same  footing  in 
regard  to  pay,  rations,  and  privileges  as  of 
ficers  of  the  same  rank  in  the  land  service.1 

When  the  Legislature  came  together  in 
October,  since  the  situation  was  still  more 

1.      Hening,  X,  296-99. 


412  Naz'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

critical,  it  was  moved  to  pass  an  additional 
act  for  the  defence  of  the  seacoast.  This 
act  shows  that  the  navy  was  in  sore  need  for 
seamen  and  money.  It  provided  drastic 
measures  to  obtain  both.  Naval  officers 
were  now  authorized,  under  certain  restric 
tions  and  limitations,  to  impress  seamen. 
The  eastern  counties  of  the  state  were  direct 
ed  to  bind  to  the  sea,  "under  the  most  pru 
dent  captains  that  can  be  procured  to  take 
them/' one-half  of  all  orphans  of  certain  de 
scriptions  living  below  the  falls  of  the  Vir 
ginia  rivers.  A  hospital  for  seamen  was 
established  at  Hampton,  to  be  maintained 
by  a  tax  of  nine  pence  a  month  on  the  salar 
ies  of  all  mariners  and  seamen  in  either  the 
navy  or  the  merchant  service  of  the  state. 
Officers  and  seamen  were  given  the  whole  of 
their  captures;  and  still  other  inducements 
to  enlistment  by  way  of  pay  and  clothing 
were  held  out. 

Two  new  galleys,  of  the  same  construc 
tion  as  those  built  by  Congress  in  1776,  car 
rying  two  32's  at  the  bow  and  at  the  stern, 
and  6's  at  the  sides,  were  ordered  for  the  de 
fence  of  the  Chesapeake.  Five  vessels  of 
the  state  fleet  were  to  be  immediately  made 
ready  for  service;  and  all  the  other  naval 
vessels  were  to  be  sold  and  the  proceeds  de 
voted  to  naval  purposes.  For  the  use  of  the 
navy  import  duties  were  laid  upon  rum,  gin, 
brandy,  and  other  spirits;  on  wine,  molasses 
and  sugar;  and  on  all  imported  dry  goods, 


A'az'31  of  the  American  Revolution  413 

except  salt,  munitions  of  war,  and  iron  from 
Maryland.  Tonnage  was  laid  upon  mer 
chant  vessels.  Despite  these  efforts  few 
seamen  and  little  money  were  raised,  and  the 
fleet  during  1780  accomplished  almost 
nothing.1 

The  salient  event  in  the  history  of  the 
Virginia  navy  in  1781  was  the  invasion  of 
Arnold  and  Phillips  during  the  first  half  of 
the  year.  Arnold  was  first  reported  on  the 
coast  of  Virginia  on  December  29,  1780, 
when  his  fleet  consisting  of  twenty-seven  sail 
was  seen  at  Willoughby  Point.2  Governor 
Jefferson  began  at  once  to  make  strenuous 
efforts  to  get  the  Virginia  fleet  in  condition  to 
oppose  Arnold.  The  role  of  admiral  was  an 
odd  one  for  Jefferson.  In  February  he  sent 
Benjamin  Harrison,  speaker  of  the  Virginia 
House  of  Delegates,  to  Philadelphia  to  re 
quest  of  the  French  minister  the  aid  of  the 
French  fleet.3  A  half-dozen  or  more  priva 
teers  were  taken  into  the  service  of  the  state. 
Twelve  vessels  of  the  state  fleet  of  1776-1779 
still  remained.  Most  if  not  all  of  these  ves 
sels  were  either  at  the  Chickahominy  ship 
yard  and  near  by  on  the  James,  or  else  at 
the  mouth  of  the  James.  Few  of  them  were 
sufficiently  manned  to  render  much  service. 
On  April  26  Maxwell  reported  78  men  on 
board  seven  vessels,  whose  complement  was 

1.  Hening,  X,  379-86. 

2.  Ford,  Writings  of  Jefferson,  II,  392. 

3.  Ibid.,  443-44. 


414  A'flZ'31  of  the  American  Revolution 

520  men.     Other  ships  had  neither  arms  nor 
men.1 

In  April,  1781,  Arnold  and  Phillips  made 
their  raid  up  the  James,  penetrating  as  far 
as  Richmond.  On  April  21  and  22,  a  detach 
ment  under  Lieutenant-Colonel  Abercrombie 
destroyed  the  shipyard  on  the  Chickahom- 
iny,  including  a  number  of  naval  craft  and 
the  warehouses.  On  April  27,  at  Osbornes 
on  the  James  a  few  miles  below  Richmond, 
the  Virginia  fleet,  supported  by  two  or  three 
hundred  militia  upon  the  shore  opposite  the 
British  army,  drew  up  to  oppose  the  enemy. 
It  consisted  of  six  ships,  eight  brigs,  five 
sloops,  two  schooners,  and  several  smaller 
craft.  Its  chief  vessels  were  the  "Tempest," 
16,  "Renown/7 16,  and  "Jefferson,"  14.  The 
British  sent  a  flag  of  truce  to  the  Commo 
dore  of  the  Virginia  fleet,  proposing  to  treat 
with  him  for  its  surrender.  He  sent  back 
the  spirited  reply  that  "he  was  determined 
to  defend  it  to  the  last  extremity."  A  few 
cannon  planted  on  the  shore  soon  gave  the 
enemy  a  command  of  the  situation.  After 
a  short  engagement,  the  Virginians  scuttled 
or  set  fire  to  several  of  their  vessels  and  fled 
to  the  opposite  shore.  None  of  the  fleet 
escaped.  The  British  captured  twelve  ves 
sels,  which  the  Virginians  were  unable  to 
destroy.  On  this  expedition  the  British 
burnt  the  state  rope-walk  at  Warwick.  After 

1.      Virginia    Calendar    of  State    Papers,    I 
588;  II,  74. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  415 

the  raid  of  Arnold  and  Phillips,  but  one  ves 
sel  remained  in  the  Virginia  navy,  the 
armed  boat  "Liberty."1 

The  officers  and  seamen  of  the  Virginia 
navy,  thrown  out  of  employment  by  the 
destruction  of  the  fleet,  aided  the  allied 
forces  at  the  siege  of  Yorktown  in  collecting 
supplies  and  transporting  troops.  The  boat 
"Liberty"  was  used  as  a  transport;  and  also 
the  ships  "Cormorant,"  "Loyalist,"  and 
"Oliver  Cromwell,"  which  three  vessels,  it 
is  believed,  Virginia  purchased  for  this  pur 
pose.  Soon  after  the  surrender  of  Corn- 
wallis  the  Virginia  General  Assembly,  recog 
nizing  that  "during  the  continuance  of  the 
present  expensive  war  it  is  necessary  to  hus 
band  the  resources  of  the  state  with  the 
utmost  oeconomy,"  dismissed  almost  all  the 
officers  and  seamen,  the  Commissioner  of 
the  Navy,  the  chaplains,  surgeons,  pay 
masters,  and  all  others  on  the  naval  staff.2 

A  number  of  times  during  the  Revolu 
tion,  and  now  for  the  last  time  in  1782,  Vir 
ginia  and  Maryland  undertook  to  concert 
a  naval  defence  of  their  trade  on  the  Chesa 
peake.  The  General  Assembly  of  Virginia 
which  met  in  May,  1782,  appointed  three 
commissioners  to  superintend  the  work  of 


1.  Almon's    Remembrancer,    1781,   II,  62- 
63,    Arnold   to   Clinton,    Petersburg,    May    12 
1781. 

2.  Hening,    Statutes  of    Virginia,   X,   450; 
Virginia  Navy  Papers,  I,  and  II. 


416  Navy  of  flic  American  Revolution 

protecting  the  Bay.  The  "  Cormorant"  and 
''Liberty"  were  to  be  immediately  prepared 
for  this  service.  Two  galleys  and  two 
barges  or  whale  boats  were  to  be  built.  For 
this  work  the  state  appropriated  £1,000,  the 
proceeds  arising  from  the  sale  of  the  "Loyal 
ist,"  and  certain  tonnage  and  import  duties. 
The  commissioners  were  to  fix  the  pay  and 
subsistence  of  the  seamen ;  .the  fleet  was  not 
to  be  sent  outside  of  the  Capes.1 

The  commissioners  managed  a  small  naval 
force  during  1782  and  1783  until  the  war  came 
to  an  end.  Commodore  Barren,  stationed  at 
Hampton,  was  chiefly  occupied  at  this  time 
with  the  exchanging  of  prisoners.  Beyond 
the  building  of  a  few  naval  craft,  it  does  not 
appear  that  this  final  naval  enterprise  of 
Virginia  wras  attended  with  fruitful  results. 
When  peace  was  declared  in  the  spring  of 
1783,  the  commissioners  had  in  different 
stages  of  construction  the  schooners  "  Har 
rison,"  "Fly,"  and  "Patriot,"  and  the 
barges  "York"  and  "Richmond."  Virginia 
now  disposed  of  all  her  fleet  except  the 
"Liberty"  and  "Patriot,"  which  she  re 
tained  as  revenue  cutters.2  In  order  to 
keep  these  two  armed  vessels  in  time  of 
peace,  Virginia,  in  accordance  with  a  pro- 

1.  Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia,  XI,  42-44. 
In  March,  1783,  the  three  commissioners  were 
Paul    Loyall,    Thomas    Brown,    and    Thomas 
Newton,  jr. — Virginia    Calendar  of  State   Pa 
pers,  III,  456. 

2.  Virginia  Navy  Papers,  II. 


Naz'y  of  the  American  Revolution  417 

vision  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  ob 
tained  the  permission  of  Congress.1  These 
two  boats  were  still  in  the. employ  of  the 
state  in  1787.  The  "  Liberty"  saw  more 
service  than  any  other  state  or  Continental 
vessel  of  the  Revolution.  She  was  in  the 
employ  of  Virginia  from  1775  until  1787. 

1.     Journals   of    Continental    Congress,    Oc 
tober  3,  1783. 


CHAPTER  XV 

THE  NAVY  OF  SOUTH  CAROLINA1 

South  Carolina  employed  her  first  armed 
vessels  in  obtaining  a  supply  of  gunpowder, 
the  need  of  which  article  was  so  keenly  felt 
throughout  the  colonies  during  the  first 
years  of  the  Revolution.  In  July,  1775,  the 
South  Carolina  Council  of  Safety  sent 
Captains  John  Barnwell  and  John  Joy- 
ner  of  Beaufort  with  forty  men  in  two  large 
and  well-armed  barges  to  assist  the  Geor 
gians  in  taking  an  English  supply-ship,  which 
was  daily  expected  at  Savannah.  The  en 
terprise  was  wholly  successful.  The  ship 
with  its  cargo  of  sixteen  thousand  pounds 
of  gunpowder  was  captured  by  the  combined 
forces  of  the  two  colonies.  South  Carolina 
sent  four  thousand  pounds  of  her  share  of 
the  powder  to  the  Continental  Congress  at 
Philadelphia.2 

1.  In  writing    this    chapter    I    have    been 
much  assisted  by  Mr.   A.  S.   Salley,  Jr.,  Secre 
tary  of  the    Historical    Commission  of    South 
Carolina. 

2.  Drayton,    Memoirs   of   American    Revo 
lution,   I,  209-71.      Collections  of  South  Caro 
lina  Historical  Societv,  II,  50. 


A'flt'v  of  the  American  Revolution  419 

In  the  same  month  of  July  the  Council  of 
Safety  planned  to  seize  certain  gunpowder 
stored  at  Nassau,  New  Providence,  and  for 
this  purpose  the  "Commerce,"  a  sloop  be 
longing  to  citizens  of  New  York,  was  tempo 
rarily  taken  into  the  service  of  the  state.  It 
will  be  recalled  that  Commodore  Esek  Hop 
kins  in  the  initial  essay  of  the  Continental 
fleet  in  February  and  March,  1776,  attempt 
ed  to  capture  this  gunpowder.  Before  the 
"Commerce"  was  ready  to  set  sail,  word  came 
that  the  brigantine  "Betsey"  from  London 
with  a  cargo  of  ammunition  was  soon  to 
arrive  at  St.  Augustine.  Captain  Clement 
Lempriere,  the  commander  of  the  "Com 
merce,"  was  therefore  ordered  to  cruise  off 
St.  Augustine  in  watch  for  the  expected  ves 
sel.  On  August  8  he  captured  the  "  Betsey" 
with  her  load  of  gunpowder  amounting  to 
almost  twelve  thousand  pounds.1 

Neither  of  these  two  episodes  led  to  a  per 
manent  naval  armament.  This,  as  was  to  be 
expected,  was  brought  about  by  the  neces 
sity  of  protecting  Charles  Town,  the  capital 
and  chief  port  of  the  Province.  The  critical 
month  in  South  Carolina  in  1775  was  Sep 
tember.  During  this  month  two  of  His 
Majesty's  vessels,  the  "Tamar,"  16,  and 
"Cherokee,"  6,  lay  in  Charles  Town  harbor. 
It  was  in  September  that  Lord  William 

1.  Collections  of  South  Carolina  Historical 
Society,  II,  43,  44,  57,  59,  62,  63.  Drayton, 
Memoirs  of  American  Revolution,  I,  304-06. 


420  Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

Campbell,  the  Royal  Governor  of  the  Prov 
ince,  fled  from  Charles  Town  on  board  the 
"Tamar."  In  September  the  South  Caro 
lina  Council  of  Safety  began  to  seize  the 
forts  commanding  the  channel  leading  to 
Charles  Town  from  the  sea.  The  executive 
of  the  Revolutionary  government  at  this 
time  consisted  of  the  Council  of  Safety  of 
thirteen  members.  About  the  first  of  Oc 
tober  the  Council  of  Safety  obtained  the 
schooner  "  Defence"  and  placed  it  under 
the  command  of  Captain  Simon  Tufts,  a 
native  of  Massachusetts,  but  now  a  resident 
of  Charles  Town.  The  Council  of  Safety 
fixed  the  pay  of  officers  and  men  on  board 
the  schooner. 

During  November,  naval  affairs  were 
chiefly  in  the  hands  of  the  Second  Provin 
cial  Congress,  the  Revolutionary  legislature, 
which  body  on  November  10  appointed 
Edward  Blake  Commissary  of  Stores  for 
the  Naval  Department.  On  November  11 
the  "  Defence/'  10,  manned  by  her  regular 
complement  of  seamen,  and  thirty-five  ma 
rines  taken  from  the  land  forces,  was  detail 
ed  to  cover  a  party  sent  to  obstruct  certain 
channels  near  Charles  Town  by  sinking  old 
schooners.  While  engaged  in  this  service 
she  exchanged  shots  with  the  "Tamar"  and 
"  Cherokee"  without  causing  much  damage 
on  either  side.  On  November  12,  stirred 
by  this  encounter,  the  Provincial  Congress 
voted,  though  by  a  narrow  majority,  to  im- 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  421 

press,  fit  out,  and  arm  the  ship  "Prosper" 
for  the  purpose  of  capturing  the  British 
ships  in  Charles  Town  harbor;  and  appoint 
ed  commissioners  to  superintend  the  work.1 
The  Provincial  Congress  having  adjourned 
on  the  29th  of  November,  the  Second  Coun 
cil  of  Safety  continued  the  naval  prepar 
ations.  On  December  16  it  appointed  Wil 
liam  Henry  Drayton,  the  well-known  Revo 
lutionary  agitator  and  leader,  to  command 
the  "Prosper"  in  place  of  Captain  Tufts 
who  had  some  time  before  been  transferred 
from  the  "Defence"  to  the  "Prosper."2  A 
third  vessel  was  now  obtained,  the  schooner 
"Comet,"  and  was  placed  in  charge  of  Cap 
tain  Joseph  Turpin.  Owing  to  the  paucity 
of  seamen  in  South  Carolina,  the  Council  of 
Safety  in  December  directed  Captain  Rob 
ert  Cochran  to  proceed  to  Massachussetts 
and  obtain  recruits  for  the  navy.  When  in 
January,  1776,  Cochran  was  in  Philadelphia, 
the  delegates  of  South  Carolina  to  the  Conti 
nental  Congress  called  that  body's  atten 
tion  to  Cochran's  mission.  In  order  that 
no  friction  should  arise  between  Cochran 
and  the  military  authorities  in  Massachus 
etts  over  the  enlistment  of  men,  Congress 
recommended  to  him  that  he  offer  to  sea- 


1.  Journals  of   South   Carolina    Provincial 
Congress,  November  9,  10,   12,  1775. 

2.  Collections  of  South  Carolina  Historical 
Society,  III,  Journals  of  South  Carolina  Coun 
cil  of  Safety,  December  16,  1775. 


422  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

men  moderate  wages  and  bounties;  that  he 
immediately  repair  to  the  camp  at  Cam 
bridge  and  take  Washington's  advice;  and 
that  he  enlist  the  seamen  in  those  parts  of 
the  country  where  he  would  least  interfere 
with  the  Continental  service.  The  Massa 
chusetts  Council  agreed  to  permit  Cochran 
to  raise  three  hundred  men.1  South  Caro 
lina  also  enlisted  seamen  in  Georgia.^ 

On  February  15  the  Second  Provincial 
Congress,  which  had  met  on  the  1st,  appoint 
ed  a  committee  to  report  on  the  best  means 
and  the  expense  of  building  two  frigates  of 
thirty-two  guns  each.  It  authorized  the 
enlisting,  if  necessary,  of  two  hundred  ma 
rines.  On  March  5  a  committee  was  ap 
pointed  to  prepare  "proper  Rules  and  Arti 
cles  for  the  better  regulation  and  govern 
ment  of  the  Navy  of  this  Colony."  On  the 
25th,  the  report  of  this  committee  after 
amendment  was  adopted,  and  on  the  next 
day  the  respective  rank  of  army  and  navy 
officers  was  fixed.  On  March  14th  the  Pro 
vincial  Congress  authorized  the  committee 
at  Georgetown,  a  port  to  the  north  of 
Charles  Town,  to  purchase  and  fit  out  proper 
armed  vessels  for  the  defence  of  the  trade  of 
Georgetown,  and  on  the  same  day  gave 


1.  Force,  American  Archives,  4th,  IV, 
1307-08.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress, 
January  16,  January  19,  1776. 


2.      Gibbes,    Documentary    History    of    the 
erican   Revolution,    1764-1776,   258. 


American 


Xavy  of  the  American  Revolution  423 

similar  orders  to  a  committee  of  Beaufort,  a 
port  to  the  south  of  Charles  Town.  Provis 
ion  was  now  made  for  a  Muster-Master  Gen 
eral  of  the  Army  and  Navy.1  In  March  the 
armed  schooner  "Peggy"  was  in  the  service 
of  the  state. 

On  March  26,  1776,  a  new  government 
under  a  Constitution  went  into  effect  in 
South  Carolina.  This  provided  for  a  legis 
lature  consisting  of  two  houses,  a  General 
Assembly  and  a  Legislative  Council.  The 
executive  of  the  state  was  a  President,  or 
"  President  and  Commander-in-chief/'  the 
title  ran,  and  a  Privy  Council  of  seven  mem 
bers.  According  to  the  constitution  the 
captains  of  the  navy  were  to  be  chosen  by 
a  joint  ballot  of  the  two  houses  of  the  Legis 
lature,  and  were  to  be  commissioned  by  the 
President.2  Early  in  April  Colonel  Pinck- 
ney  presented  in  the  General  Assembly  an 
ordinance  to  appoint  a  Commander  of  the 
Navy  to  be  subject  to  the  President.3  On 
April  9  the  Legislature  passed  an  act  to 
prevent  the  desertion  of  soldiers  and  sailors. 
A  hospital  for  sick  and  wounded  soldiers  and 
sailors  was  established  at  Charles  Town.  On 
April  11  the  Legislature  established  a  Court 
of  Admiralty  which  was  given  jurisdiction 

1.  Journals   of    South   Carolina    Provincial 
Congress,    February    15,   February   22,    March 
5,  14,  25,  26,  1776. 

2.  Constitution  of  South  Carolina  of  1776. 

3.  Journals  of  South  Carolina  General  As 
sembly,  April  10,  April  11,  1776. 


424  A'az'31  of  the  American  Revolution 

over  all  captured  ships  belonging  to  "Great 
Britain,  Ireland,  the  British  West  Indies, 
Nova  Scotia,  East  and  West  Florida."  The 
facts  in  cases  of  capture  were  to  be  tried  by 
a  jury.1 

On  September  21,  1776,  President  John 
Rutledge,  in  a  message  to  the  Legislature, 
recommended  the  appointment  of  commis 
sioners  to  superintend  the  naval  affairs  of 
the  state,  believing  that  thereby  the  navy 
would  be  placed  upon  a  better  footing.  On 
the  same  day,  in  accordance  with  the  Presi 
dent's  recommendation,  the  General  As 
sembly  appointed  a  committee  to  draft  a 
bill.  On  October  8  an  act  was  passed  which 
established  a  Board  of  Naval  Commission 
ers,  consisting  of  seven  men,  and  empowered 
"to  superintend  and  direct  all  matters  and 
things  whatsoever  to  the  navy  of  this  state 
in  any  wise  relating."2  This  act  was  model 
led  on  the  act  of  Virginia  on  the  same  sub 
ject.  It  varies  from  the  Virginia  act  in  a 
few  particulars,  and  is  a  little  more  detailed. 
The  Navy  Board  was  charged  with  the  build 
ing,  hiring  or  buying  of  all  naval  vessels, 
and  the  arming,  outfitting  and  provisioning 
of  the  same,  and  with  the  construction  of 


1.  Journals  of  South  Carolina  General  As 
sembly,   April    11,    1776;    Cooper,   Statutes   of 
South  Carolina,  IV,  April  9,  April  11,  1776. 

2.  Journals  of  South  Carolina  General  As 
sembly,    September    21,    1776;   Cooper,    Stat 
utes  of  South  Carolina,  IV,  Octobers,  1776. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  425 

rope-walks  and  shipyards.  It  was  author 
ized  to  audit  the  naval  accounts,  draw  war 
rants  on  the  treasury  for  necessary  expen 
ditures,  recommend  officers,  fill  vacancies 
temporarily  with  the  approval  of  the  Presi 
dent,  keep  itself  informed  as  to  the  state  of 
the  navy,  and  report  thereon  to  the  Legis 
lature.  With  the  concurrence  of  the  Presi 
dent  and  the  Privy  Council  the  Board  could 
remove  or  suspend  officers  for  neglect  of 
duty  or  misbehavior.  Soon  after  the  organ 
ization  of  the  Board,  the  question  was 
raised  whether  it  had  the  power  to  order 
the  vessels  on  cruises;  the  President  and 
Privy  Council  decided  that  the  Board  had 
no  such  power,  and  that  the  detailing  of 
vessels  was  a  function  of  their  own.1  In 
addition  to  its  strictly  naval  duties  the  Board 
directed  the  procuring  and  fitting  out  of 
trading  vessels  and  transports. 

The  Navy  Board  held  its  first  meeting  on 
October  9, 1776,  at  Charles  Town,  and  organ 
ized  by  electing  Edward  Blake  First  Com 
missioner.  On  the  12th  it  chose  its  clerk.2 
The  duty  of  this  officer  was  to  keep  a  regu 
lar  journal  of  the  transactions  of  the  Board; 
and  once  in  three  months,  or  oftener  if  nec 
essary,  to  go  aboard  the  vessels  and  take  an 


1.  Force,     American     Archives,     5th,     II, 
Journals  of  South    Carolina   Navy  Board,  Oc 
tober  25,  1776. 

2.  Ibid.,  Journals  of  South  Carolina  Navy 
Board,  October  9,  12,  1776. 


426  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

account  of  the  officers  and  seamen  and  pay 
them  their  wages.  His  salary  was  £1,400 
currency,  a  year.  At  first  a  majority  of  the 
Board  constituted  a  quorum.  When  it  be 
came  difficult  to  assemble  four  out  of  its 
seven  members,  two  more  members  were 
added  to  the  Board,  and  a  quorum  was  re 
duced  to  three  men.1  The  act  which  estab 
lished  the  Board  was  to  continue  in  effect 
two  years.  On  October  9,  1778,  the  Board 
was  continued  until  October  8,  1779,  and 
from  thence  until  the  end  of  the  Legislature 
then  in  session.  The  introduction  of  a 
bill  into  the  House  of  Representatives  on 
February  8,  1780,  to  repeal  all  previous 
acts  establishing  a  Board  of  Naval  Com 
missioners  makes  it  highly  probable  that 
the  Navy  Board  was  discontinued  about 
this  time.2 

On  taking  charge  of  naval  affairs  the 
Navy  Board  found  one  of  its  most  engrossing 
duties  to  be  the  purchasing  of  supplies  of 
all  sorts — salted  beef  and  pork,  bread, 
pitch,  tar,  turpentine,  tallow,  duck,  cord 
age,  and  spars.  On  October  17, 1776,  it  ap 
pointed  a  naval  agent  at  Georgetown  to 
procure  and  issue  supplies  to  the  schooner 
"Rattlesnake,"  Captain  Stephen  Seymour, 
now  in  the  employ  of  the  state  for  the  pro- 

1.  Cooper,     Statutes    of     South     Carolina, 
IV,  August  23,  1777. 

2.  Journals    of    South    Carolina    House    of 
Representatives,  February  8,  1780. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  427 

tection  of  this  port.1  The  Board  continued 
the  building  of  four  galleys,  which  had  been 
begun  by  President  Rutledge.  In  April, 

1777,  it  leased  Captain  Cochran's  shipyard 
at  Charles  Town,  together  with  five  negroes, 
for  the  term  of  five  years.2     In  October, 

1778,  it   bought   of  Paul   Pritchard,   ship 
wright,  eighty-five  acres  on  Hobcaw  creek, 
near  Charles  Town,  for  a  shipyard.3 

During  1777  and  1778  the"  Legislature 
passed  a  few  ordinances  relating  to  the  navy. 
On  January  16,  1777,  it  fixed  the  shares  of 
prizes.  Officers  and  seamen  were  to  receive 
one-half  the  net  proceeds  of  all  captures. 
This  half  was  then  to  be  divided  into  six 
teen  parts  and  allotted  to  officers  and  sea 
men  according  to  a  fixed  scale.  Captains 
were  given  two-sixteenths ;  seamen  and  ma 
rines,  three-sixteenths.4  In  February  the 
captors'  share  of  vessels  of  war  and  priva 
teers  was  increased  to  the  whole  of  the  prize. 
In  January,  1778,  a  law  of  obvious  purpose 
was  passed,  which  freed  all  seamen  who  en 
tered  into  the  Continental  or  state  naval 
service  from  the  obligations  of  previous  con- 

1.  Force,  American  Archives,  oth,  II,  Jour 
nals  of  South  Carolina  Navy  Board,  October 
17,    1776. 

2.  Journals    of    South    Carolina    House    of 
Representatives,    September    10,     1779.      The 
contract  with  Cochran  was  being  dissolved. 

3.  Notes  of  Mr.  A.  S.  Salley,  Jr. ,  Secretary  of 
the  Historical  Commission  of  South  Carolina. 

4.  Cooper,  Statutes  of  South  Carolina,  IV, 
January  16,  1777. 


428  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

tracts  made  with  the  owners  of  private  ships. 
In  March,  1778,  the  appointment  of  a  com 
modore  to  command  the  navy  of  the  state 
necessitated  a  new  distribution  of  the  pro 
ceeds  of  captures  among  officers  and  seamen. 
The  commodore's  share  was  fixed  at  two- 
sixteenths.1  In  October,  1778,  the  Legis 
lature  authorized  the  Navy  Board  to  pur 
chase  any  "  negroes  or  other  slaves  for  the 
use  of  the  publick  shipyard  or  rope  work/' 
which  property  was  to  be  vested  in  the  pub 
lic  forever.2 

During  1776,  1777,  and  1778  the  Navy 
Board  added  a  few  vessels  to  the  navy. 
Several  galleys  were  built  during  this  period. 
In  the  fall  of  1776  the  brigantine  "  Notre 
Dame'7  was  procured,  armed,  and  sent  to 
France  under  the  command  of  Captain  Rob 
ert  Cochran  on  a  trading  voyage.3  In  1777 
one  finds  the  sloop  "  Beaufort"  in  the  serv 
ice  of  the  state,  being  probably  stationed 
at  Beaufort  for  the  defence  of  the  trade  of 
that  port.  Early  in  1779  the  Navy  Board 
completed  the  construction  of  the  brig  "Hor 
net."  Now  and  then  the  state  obtained  the 


1.  Cooper,  Statutes  of  South  Carolina,  IV, 
February    13,    1777,    January    26,    March    28, 
1778.      On   February  13,   1777,  a    new  act   re 
lating  to  the  Court  of  Admiralty  was  passed. 

2.  Ibid.,  October  9,  1778. 

3.  In   1776  the  following  vessels  were  em 
ployed  as  merchantmen:   schooners,    "Polly," 
"Peggy"  and  "Little  Thomas;"  the  brigantine 
"Notre  Dame,"  and  the  sloop  "Margaret." 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  429 

loan  of  privateers  for  short  periods.  Infor 
mation  concerning  South  Carolina's  priva 
teers  is  scant.  We  know,  however,  that 
she  had  a  considerable  fleet.  Between 
August  17,  1776,  and  April  16,  1777,  Presi 
dent  Rutledge  granted  thirty-seven  letters 
of  marque.1 

Few  states  exceeded  South  Carolina 
in  naval  expenditures.  With  the  excep 
tion  of  Massachusetts,  the  vessels  of  no 
other  state  went  to  sea  so  often  as  did  those 
of  South  Carolina.  The  navy  of  South  Car 
olina  was  smaller  than  that  of  Virginia, 
but  much  more  active.  From  1776  to 
1779  it  captured  some  thirty-five  small 
prizes,  only  about  half  of  which,  however, 
'reached  safe  ports.2  Its  principal  cruising 
grounds  were  off  the  South  Carolina  and 
Florida  coasts  and  in  the  West  Indies.  The 
South  Carolina  vessels  frequently  cruised 
off  St.  Augustine.  This  was  an  important 
British  port  during  the  Revolution,  and 
many  privateers  and  smaller  British  vessels 
visited  it.  The  noting  of  a  few  captures 
will  show  the  character  of  the  work  of  the 
South  Carolina  navy.  In  July,  1777,  the 
"Notre  Dame"  carried  into  a  South  Car 
olina  port  the  brig  "Judith,"  12,  laden  with 


1.  South  Carolina  Archives,  Miscellaneous 
Records,  A,   18,   19. 

2.  Files  of   South   Carolina  and  American 
General  Gazette,  and  Gazette  of  State  of  South 
Carolina. 


430  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

dry  goods  for  St.  Augustine;  and  in  October 
the  same  vessel  captured  the  brig  "John," 
and  the  schooner  "Jemmy  and  Sally"  with 
cargoes  of  staves  and  shingles  outward 
bound  from  the  Mississippi.1  In  the  spring 
of  1779  the  "Notre  Dame,"  "Hornet,"  and 
"Eagle"  made  prizes  of  the  sloop  "Prince  of 
Wales,"  12,  and  the  brig  "Royal  Charlotte," 
both  bound  for  Georgia,  with  West  India 
products.2 

In  December,  1777,  President  Rutledge 
and  the  Privy  Council,  in  opposition  to  the 
best  military  judgment  in  South  Carolina, 
concerted  with  Captain  Nicholas  Biddle,  of 
the  Continental  frigate  "Randolph,"  32,  an 
expedition  to  clear  the  coasts  of  the  enemy's 
vessels.  South  Carolina  furnished  the  "No 
tre  Dame,"  16,  Captain  Hall,  and  three  pri 
vateers,  which  were  temporarily  taken  into 
the  public  service.  These  were  the  ships 
"General  Moultrie,"  18,  Captain  Sullivan, 
"Polly,"  16,  Captain  Anthony,  and  "Fair 
American,"  14,  Captain  Morgan.  One  hun 
dred  and  fifty  South  Carolina  troops  were 
taken  on  board  to  serve  as  marines.  Sailing 
about  February  1, 1779,  the  fleet  soon  cleared 
the  coast  of  the  enemy,  and  then  proceeded 
to  the  West  Indies  on  the  lookout  for  rich 
West  India  merchantmen — an  object  which 


1.  Gazette  of  State  of  South  Carolina.  July 
21,  November  4,  1777. 

2.  Ibid.,  April  7,   1779. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  431 

was  probably  in  view  from  the  first.  On 
March  7,  when  the  fleet  was  to  the  wind 
ward  of  Barbacloes,  the  "Randolph"  fell  in 
with  the  British  ship  of  the  line  "Yar 
mouth/'  64.  During  a  running  fight  an  ex 
plosion  of  tremendous  force  occurred  on 
board  the  "Randolph."  Burning  spars  and 
timbers  six  feet  long,  together  with  an  un 
damaged  ensign,  fell  upon  the  decks  of  the 
"Yarmouth."  The  "Randolph,"  with  al 
most  her  entire  crew  of  315  men,  including 
Captain  Joseph  loor  and  fifty  South  Caro 
lina  marines,  sank  soon  after  the  accident. 
Five  days  after  the  fight  the  "Yarmouth" 
picked  up  four  men  clinging  to  the  wreck 
age,  the  only  men  rescued.  Two  of  the  four 
South  Carolina  vessels,  the  "General  Moul- 
trie"  and  the  "Fair  American,"  now  re 
turned  home,  taking  on  the  way  a  valuable 
Guineaman.  The  "Notre  Dame"  and  the 
"Polly"  continued  their  cruise  within  the 
West  Indies,  the  "Notre  Dame"  reaching 
as  far  westward  as  the  Isle  of  Pines.  The 
two  vessels  captured  eleven  small  prizes, 
a  number  of  which,  however,  were  recap 
tured  before  reaching  safe  ports.1 

The  transference  of  the  seat  of  war  from 
the  Northern  to  the  Southern  states,  in 

1.  Moultrie,  Memoirs  of  American  Revolu 
tion,  I,  193-99;  South  Carolina  and  American 
General  Gazette,  April  23,  May  28,  June  4, 
1778;  Ramsay,  Revolution  in  South  Carolina] 
I,  71;  Clowes's  Royal  Navy,  IV,  10. 


432  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

1779,  and  the  British  naval  expedition 
against  Charles  Town,  early  in  1780,  caused 
increased  naval  activity  in  South  Carolina. 
In  August,  1779,  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  sent  to  the  Senate  a  bill  offering  boun 
ties  and  fixing  a  new  rate  of  wages  for  officers 
and  seamen.1  In  September  the  House 
passed  a  bill  for  building  two  floating  bat 
teries  and  four  galleys.2  Acting  on  the 
recommendations  of  the  Governor,  the 
House  in  February,  1780,  voted  that  it 
would  be  of  public  utility  to  employ  a  num 
ber  of  negroes  not  to  exceed  one  thousand 
to  act  as  pioneers  and  fatigue  men  in  the 
army  and  as  oarsmen  and  mariners  in  the 
navy.3  Additional  armed  vessels  were  now 
obtained  in  different  ways.  During  1779 
the  Governor  issued  commissions  to  four 
teen  vessels.  A  number  of  small  craft, 
used  chiefly  as  transports,  were  impressed.4 

1.  Journals    of    South    Carolina    House    of 
Representatives,  August  31,   1779. 

2.  Ibid.,  September  6,   1779.      The  Senate 
was  not  willing  to  make  so  large  a  naval  in 
crease. 

3.  Ibid.,  February  14,  1780. 

4.  South  Carolina  Archives,   Miscellaneous 
Records,     A.      Among    the    vessels   to    which 
the  Governor  gave  commissions  were  the  fol 
lowing:  galleys   "Congress,"    "South   Edisto," 
"Revenge,"   "Beaufort,"   "Lee,"  "Marquis  de 
Bretigny,"     and     "Carolina;"     sloop     "Count 
de     Kersaint,"     brigantines     "General      Lin 
coln"  and  "Beaufort,"  schooner  "Eshe,"  and 
the  vessel  "Lovely  Julia."     The  following  ves 
sels,  a  number  of  which  were  impressed,  were 


Xai'v  of  the  American  Revolution  433 

The  "Notre  Dame,"  16,  and  the  "  General 
Moultrie,"  20,  were  assigned  to  the  defence 
of  Charles  Town.  The  state  purchased 
from  France  the  "Bricole,"  44,  and  the 
"Truite,"  26.  The  "Bricole"  was  pierced 
for  sixty  guns,  and  mounted  forty-four 
24's  and  18's.  She  was  the  largest  vessel 
owned  by  any  of  the  states.  For  the 
defence  of  Charles  Town  France  sent 
"  L'Aventure,"  26,  and  "Polacre,"  16;  and 
Congress  the  "Providence/'  28,  "Boston/' 
24,  "Queen  of  France/'  28,  and  "Ranger," 
18.1 

The  naval  defence  of  Charles  Town  was  in 
trusted  to  Captain  Abraham  Whipple,  the 
senior  officer  of  the  four  Continental  vessels. 
Whipple  advised  that  a  naval  defence  at  the 
bar  on  the  seacoast,  which  lay  to  the  east 
ward  of  the  forts  that  commanded  the  en 
trance  to  Charles  Town  harbor,  should  not 
be  undertaken;  and  later  he  gave  it  as  his 
opinion  that  it  was  impracticable  for  the 
armed  vessels  to  cooperate  with  the  forts. 
Such  timid  counsels  prevailed,  and  no  naval 
defence  of  Charles  Town  was  made.  With 
the  exception  of  the  "Ranger"  all  the  ves 
sels  were  dismantled  and  their  guns  and 
crews  removed  to  reinforce  the  land 


in  the  service  of  the  state  in  1779  or  1780:  gal 
ley  "Rutledge,"  schooners  "Polly,"  "Rattle 
snake,"  "Sally,"  "Anthony,"  "General  Moul 
trie,"  "Nancy,"  "Three  Friends,"  brig  "Wasp" 
and  brigantine  "Ballony." 

1.      Almon's  Remembrancer,  1780,  11,44-47. 


434  Naz'\  of  tJie  American  Revolution 

ies  and  troops  in  Charles  Town.  With  the 
fall  of  the  city  on  May  12,  1780,  South  Caro 
lina  lost  her  entire  navy,  with  the  exception 
of  the  frigate  "South  Carolina,"  whose  for 
tunes  we  are  about  ready  to  consider.  The 
"Bricole,"  "Truite,"  "General  Moultrie," 
and  "Notre  Dame"  were  sunk.1  The  "Bos 
ton"  and  "Ranger"  were  added  to  the  Royal 
Navy. 

In  1781,  with  the  returning  tide  of  the 
patriot  forces  a  few  small  vessels  were 
armed  at  Georgetown.2  In  February,  1783, 
Governor  Guerard  recommended  the  pur 
chase  of  a  ship,  which  had  lately  been  car 
ried  into  Wilmington,  North  Carolina,  for  the 
defence  of  Charles  Town  harbor.  The  House 
was  unfavorable  to  the  transaction,  be 
cause  of  the  lack  of  means,  the  difficulty 
of  manning  the  ship,  and  the  risk  of  bringing 
it  around.3  In  March,  1783,  a  committee 
of  the  House  was  appointed  to  consider 
what  arrangements  should  be  made  with  re 
spect  to  the  naval  officers  of  the  state;  and 
it  reported  that,  by  the  Articles  of  Confed 
eration,  South  Carolina  was  precluded  from 

1.  Previous  to  the  siege  of  Charles  Town, 
His  Majesty's  navy  had  captured  the  following 
vessels:     February,  1777,  "Defence"  taken  by 
the    "Roebuck"    and    "Perseus;"    December, 
1777,     "Comet,"    taken    by    the    "Daphne;" 
April,   1779,  "Hornet,"  taken  by  the  same. 

2.  Gibbes,  Documentary  History  of  Amer 
ican  Revolution,  1776-1782,  181,  183. 

3.  Journals    of    South    Carolina    House    of 
Representatives,  February   12,   1780. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  435 

having  a  navy,  and  that  it  was  therefore  of 
the  opinion  that  the  state  could  not  retain 
in  its  service  its  naval  officers.1 

A  most  interesting  episode  in  the  history 
of  the  South  Carolina  navy  remains  to  be 
told.  It  properly  begins  with  the  commis 
sioning  on  March  11,  1778,  of  Alexander  Gil- 
Ion,  a  prosperous  and  influential  merchant 
of  South  Carolina,  to  be  a  commodore  in  the 
navy  with  "full  and  ample  power  and  au 
thority  to  take  the  Command,  Direction, 
and  Ordering  of  the  said  Navy/'  agreeable 
to  its  rules  and  articles.  On  the  same  day 
John  Joyner,  William  Robertson,  and  John 
McQueen  received  commissions  as  captains. 
On  March  26  the  state  decided  to  raise 
abroad  £500,000  currency,  or  £71,429  ster 
ling,  for  the  purpose  of  building  or  purchas 
ing  three  frigates.  On  July  17  Gillon  was 
commissioned  to  go  abroad  and  undertake 
the  task  of  securing  the  loan  and  procuring 
the  vessels.  The  exact  sum  which  Gillon 
was  now  directed  to  borrow  was  less  than 
£500,000  by  the  sum  of  the  proceeds  which 
he  would  derive  from  the  sale  of  certain  prod 
uce,  to  be  exported  from  South  Carolina 
to  Europe,  and  consisting  chiefly  of  indigo 
and  rice.  Early  in  the  fall  of  1778  the 
"  Notre  Dame"  carried  Gillon,  his  three  cap 
tains,  and  other  naval  officers  to  Havana, 
whence  they  took  passage  to  Europe. 

1.  Journals  of  South  Carolina  House  of 
Representatives,  March  f>,  1783. 


436  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

On  January  31,  1779,  Gillon  was  empow 
ered  to  borrow,  in  addition  to  previous  au 
thorizations,  £15,000  sterling,  which  was 
to  be  invested  in  arms,  ammunition,  and 
"  Indian  goods. "  Of  the  total  sum,  £86,429, 
which  he  was  authorized  to  obtain,  "he  act 
ually  borrowed  in  Amsterdam,  Ghent,  Bor 
deaux  and  Paris  £46,725,  and  received  as 
the  proceeds  arising  from  the  sale  of  ex 
ported  produce  £10,000.  It  is  thus  seen 
that  Gillon,  in  his  financial  mission,  was 
moderately  successful.  He  was  less  for 
tunate  in  making  the  proposed  naval  in 
crease.  He  succeeded,  however,  in  renting 
the  frigate  " Indian"  from  the  Chevalier 
Luxembourg  for  one-fourth  of  her  prizes, 
for  a  period  of  three  years.  The  reader 
recollects  that  this  ship  was  built  at  Amster 
dam  in  1777  by  the  American  Commission 
ers  at  Paris,  and  that  owing  to  lack  of  money 
and  to  complications  growing  out  of  the 
laws  of  neutrality,  they  had  sold  the  "In 
dian"  to  the  French  king.  Louis  XVI.  had, 
in  turn,  ceded  the  "Indian"  to  the  Chevalier 
Luxembourg.1 

Gillon  renamed  his  frigate  the  "South 
Carolina,"  and  mounted  her  with  twenty- 
eight  32's  and  twelve  12's.  Numerous  de- 


1.  South  Carolina  Archives,  Miscellaneous 
Records,  A,  66,  67;  Journals  of  South  Carolina 
House  of  Representatives,  March  10,  1783, 
report  of  a  committee  on  certain  papers  of 
Commodore  Gillon. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  437 

lays  ensued  in  getting  to  sea.  Owing  to 
shallow  water  and  the  heavy  draught  of  the 
"  South  Carolina/'  she  was  from  July  to  No 
vember,  1780,  moving  from  Amsterdam  to 
the  Texel.  She  spent  the  winter  of  1780- 
1781  in  a  small  creek  near  the  Texel.  These 
delays  caused  much  expense,  and  in  order 
to  pay  off  some  of  his  bills,  Gillon,  in  the 
spring  of  1781,  sold  to  Colonel  John  Laurens 
for  Congress  military  supplies,  which  he  had 
recently  purchased  for  South  Carolina,  to 
the  amount  of  £10,000.  Laurens  now  en 
gaged  Gillon  to  take  these  supplies  together 
with  others  to  Philadelphia.  Gillon  had 
been  given  full  power  to  man  and  officer  his 
vessel,  having  carried  over  with  him  fifteen 
commissions  and  thirty  warrants  in  blank. 
In  March,  1781,  he  wrote  that  he  had  about 
two  hundred  men  on  board,  and  that  he 
expected  two  hundred  and  eighty  from  Dun 
kirk  which  the  Chevalier  Luxembourg  had 
raised  for  the  state.1 

The  "South  Carolina"  finally  got  to  sea 
about  the  first  of  August,  1781,  leaving  be 
hind  the  convoy  which  had  expected  to  ac 
company  her.  Gillon's  movements  and 
dealings  abroad  are  not  at  all  points  clear. 
He  aroused  suspicions  as  to  his  honesty, 
and  made  a  number  of  enemies.  Exactly 
why  he  did  not  at  once  proceed  to  Phila- 

1 .  South  Carolina  Historical  and  Genealogi 
cal  Magazine,  I,  28-32,  136-47,  two  letters  of 
Gillon. 


438  Navy  o/  the  American  Revolution 

delphia  with  the  supplies  for  Congress 
which  he  had  on  board  is  not  certain.  On 
sailing  he  cruised  for  a  month  in  the  North 
Sea,  and  for  a  time  near  the  English  Chan 
nel,  and  then,  about  the  first  of  October, 
he  put  into  Coruna,  Spain.  Gillon  said 
that  he  had  been  detained  by  contrary 
winds,  and  had  returned  for  fresh  provisions 
before  sailing  for  America.1 

On  January  12,  1782,  Gillon  arrived  at 
Havana  with  five  valuable  Jamaicamen, 
loaded  with  rum  and  sugar,  and  said  to  be 
worth  $150,000.  Here  he  found  the  Span 
iards  planning  a  descent  on  the  Bahama  Isl 
ands,  and  he  now  agreed  to  take  command 
of  the  sea-forces  consisting  of  fifty-nine 
Spanish  and  American  vessels — probably 
chiefly  Spanish.  General  Cadrigal  com 
manded  the  troops.  The  expedition  left 
Havana  on  April  22,  and  on  May  8  the  Ba 
hamas  surrendered  without  firing  a  shot. 
Gillon  not  very  modestly  attributed  the  suc 
cess  of  the  enterprise  to  the  "  great  atten 
tion  which  the  captains  and  officers  of  the 
American  vessels  of  war  paid  in  conveying 
such  a  fleet  through  so  difficult  and  so  un 
frequented  a  passage,  with  a  beating  wind 
all  the  way,  whereby  we  disappointed  any 
plans  the  enemy  might  have  formed  of  at- 


1.  New  York  Historical  Society  Collec 
tions,  Deane  Papers,  IV,  450,  468,  478,  519; 
Wharton,  Diplomatic  Correspondence,  IV,  546- 
47,  note. 


.Vary  of  the  American  Revolution  439 

tacking  us  in  our  way  through  the  gulph  of 
Florida."  The  island  surrendered,  not  to 
the  joint  American  and  Spanish  forces,  but 
to  the  Spaniards  alone.1  It  was  reported 
that  the  Spaniards  and  Gillon  captured 
three  hundred  troops  and  ninety  sail  of  ves 
sels.2 

On  May  28th  the  "  South  Carolina"  ar 
rived  in  Philadelphia,  where  she  was  refit 
ting  during  the  summer  and  fall  of  1782. 
An  agent  of* the  Chevalier  Luxembourg 
now  removed  Gillon  from  the  command 
of  his  vessel,  which  was  given  to  Captain 
Joyner.  The  "South  Carolina"  did  not  get 
to  sea  until  December,  1782.  Soon  after 
leaving  the  Capes  of  the  Delaware  she  was 
chased  by  a  British  squadron,  which,  after  a 
race  of  eighteen  hours,  overhauled  her,  and 
at  the  end  of  a  two  hours'  fight,  forced  her  to 
surrender.3  For  the  loss  of  this  vessel  the 
Chevalier  Luxembourg,  in  accordance  with 
the  terms  of  his  contract,  demanded  from 
South  Carolina  the  payment  of  300,000 
livres.  Gillon  asserted  that  Luxembourg 
had  forfeited  all  right  to  the  money  by  dis- 

1.  Pennsylvania  Packet,  March  5,  May  31, 
and  June  4,    1782.      The  issue  of  June  4    con 
tains  a  letter  of  Gillon  to  Governor  Mathewes 
of  South   Carolina,  dated   May   15,    1782,  con 
taining  an  account  of  the  expedition;  Gibbes, 
Documentary    History    of  American    Revolu 
tion,  1776-1782,  170. 

2.  Connecticut  Gazette,   June    14,    1782. 

3.  Clowes 's  Royal  Navy,  IV,  91. 


44-O  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

placing  him  at  Philadelphia  from  his  com 
mand  of  the  vessel.  Further,  Gillon  de 
clared  that  the  Chevalier  had  subjected 
the  state  to  serious  losses  by  sending  its 
marines,  in  the  winter  of  1780-1781,  on 
an  expedition  to  the  Island  of  Jersey.1 
One  estimate  makes  the  total  cost  of  the 
frigate  to  the  state  more  than  $200,000,  and 
another  puts  it  at  $500,000.2  The  Luxem 
bourg  claims  remained  unsettled  until  De 
cember  21,  1814,  when  the  state  made  a 
final  payment  of  $28,894  to  the  heirs  of  the 
Chevalier.3  South  Carolina  is  still  pros 
ecuting  her  claims  against  the  United  States 
for  a  reimbursement  of  the  expenses  con 
tracted  in  behalf  of  the  "South  Carolina."4 


1.  Journals    of    South    Carolina    House    of 
Representatives,  March  10,  1783. 

2.  McCrady,    South     Carolina   in     Revolu 
tion,  1775-1780,  219. 

3.  Cooper,   Statutes  of  South  Carolina,  V, 
December  21,  1814. 

4.  Conversations  with    Hon.    J.   T.   Gantt, 
Secretary  of  State  of  South  Carolina. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE  MINOR  NAVIES  OF  THE  SOUTHERN 
STATES 

Naval  administration  in  Maryland  was 
vested  in  the  Committee  of  Safety  until 
March  22,  1777,  when  it  passed  to  the  Gov 
ernor  and  Council,  the  executive  under  the 
first  state  constitution  of  Maryland.  The 
Committee  was  given  a  free  hand  in  its  con 
trol  of  the  navy.  The  Provincial  Conven 
tion  empowered  it  to  fix  the  pay  of  officers 
and  seamen,  and  to  appoint  the  command 
ers  of  the  smaller  naval  vessels.  The  Con 
vention,  however,  established  the  pay  of 
marines,  which  was  the  same  as  that  of  the 
state  troops;  and  it  decided  that  the  uni 
form  of  the  marines  should  be  a  blue  hunt 
ing  shirt.1  The  first  naval  work  of  the 
Committee  of  Safety  was  the  fitting  and 
arming,  in  February  and  March,  1776,  of 
the  ship  "Defence,"  twenty-two  6-pound- 
ers,  Captain  James  Nicholson,  the  chief  ves 
sel  in  the  Maryland  navy.  In  March  the 
schooner  "Resolution"  was  purchased  as  a 

1.      Force,  American  Archives,  4th  IV  744- 
45;  5th,  III,  94. 


442  A'az/v  of  the  American  Revolution 

tender  for  the  "Defence."  The  Committee 
of  Safety,  which  held  its  meetings  in  Annap 
olis  was  early  in  1776  assisted  in  its  work  at 
Baltimore,  the  chief  port  of  the  state,  by 
the  Baltimore  Committee  of  Observation; 
and,  later  in  the  year,  by  Jesse  Hollings- 
worth,  who  was  appointed  naval  agent  for 
Baltimore. 

In  June  and  July,  1776,  the  Provincial 
Convention  ordered  the  Committee  of  Safety 
to  build  seven  row-galleys,  and  to  fit  out 
three  small  vessels,  mounting  not  more 
than  ten  guns  each,  and  a  number  of  armed 
boats  not  to  exceed  six.1  By  the  spring 
of  1777  the  Committee  of  Safety  had  built, 
fitted,  and  officered  the  galleys  "Baltimore," 
"Conqueror,"  "Independence,"  and  "Ches 
ter,"  and  the  armed  boat  "Plater;"  it  had 
in  process  of  construction,  ready  to  launch, 
the  galleys  "Johnson"  and  "Annapolis," 
and  it  had  purchased  the  tender  "Amelia" 
and  the  schooner  "Dolphin."  During  the 
first  years  of  the  war  the  Committee  of 
Safety  hired  or  purchased  several  small  ves 
sels,  which  were  used  chiefly  as  merchant 
men.2  It  is  not  always  easy  to  distinguish 
these  craft  from  the  naval  vessels,  which 

1.  Force,     American    Archives,     4th,     VI, 
1487,  1496. 

2.  The  following  vessels  were  employed  as 
trading      craft:      Sloop      "Molly;"      schooners 
"Ninety-Six,"      "General     Smallwood,"     and 
"Friendship;"     brigs     "Sam"     and     "Friend 
ship,"  and  ship  "Lydia." 


Xai'\  of  the  American  Revolution  443 

were  now  and  then  sent  on  trading  voyages. 
Maryland's  most  common  commercial  ven 
ture  was  to  ship  flour  and  tobacco  to  the 
firm  of  Harrison  and  Van  Bibber  at  Martin 
ique,  and  there  laden  her  vessels  for  the 
homeward  voyage  with  munitions  of  war.1 

As  an  inducement  to  recruits ,  the  Pro 
vincial  Convention,  in  October,  1776,  offered 
a  bounty  of  $20  to  able  seamen,  and  $10  to 
landsmen.  Officers  and  seamen  who  re 
ceived  bounties  and  wages  w^ere  given  one- 
third  of  their  prizes,  the  share  granted  by 
the  Continental  Congress;  those  who  did  not 
receive  bounties  and  wages  were  given  the 
whole  of  their  prizes.2  Maryland  was  un 
able  to  meet  the  competition  with  privateers 
for  seamen,  and  her  vessels  were  often  forced 
to  remain  in  port  for  lack  of  crews.  In  De 
cember,  1776,  the  naval  agent  at  Baltimore 
wrote  that  he  could  "load  twenty  vessels 
rather  than  man  and  sail  two.  The  money 
paid  to  captains  and  sailors  is  wonderful, 
and  no  way  to  shun  it."3 

Maryland  established  in  her  navy  the 
rank  of  commodore.  On  June  8,  1778,  her 
Governor  commissioned  Thomas  Grason, 
who  had  been  appointed  commodore  on 
April  21  by  the  General  Assembly.4  In 
1782  a  "Commodore  Whaley"  was  in  the 


1.  Maryland  Archives,  XI,  XII,  XVI,  XXI. 

2.  Force,  American  Archives,  5th,  III,  128. 

3.  Ibid.,   1025. 

4.  Maryland   Archives,    XXI,    125. 


444  A'arv  of  the  American  Revolution 

naval  service.  Her  most  prominent  cap 
tains  were  James  Nicholson,  who  in  1776 
became  the  senior  captain  in  the  Continental 
navy;  and  George  Cook,  who  had  served 
seven  years  in  the  British  navy.  Lieuten 
ant  John  Henry  Boucher  resigned  early  in 
1776  to  enter  the  Virginia  naval  service, 
where  he  soon  rose  to  the  highest  rank. 

In  May,  1776,  the  Provincial  Convention, 
pursuant  to  the  resolves  of  the  Continental 
Congress,  established  a  Court  of  Admiralty, 
consisting  of  a  judge,  marshal,  and  register. 
The  procedure  was  to~be  that  usual  in  such 
courts;  trial  by  jury  was  made  optional; 
and  the  judge  was  permitted  to  determine 
the  places  of  sitting.1  The  privateers  of 
Maryland  were  generally  small  craft,  mount 
ing  on  the  average  eight  4-pounders.  They 
plied  their  trade  chiefly  in  Chesapeake  Bay. 
From  April  1,  1777,  to  March  14,  1783,  a 
period  of  almost  six  years,  Maryland  issued 
letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  to  248  pri 
vateers,  carrying  a  total  of  1810  guns.2 

Since  a  number  of  her  vessels  had  been  for 
some  time  idle  for  lack  of  crews,  Mary 
land  in  the  first  half  of  1779  sold  all 
of  her  naval  craft,  except  the  galleys 
"Conqueror"  and  "Chester,"  and  the 
schooner  "Dolphin."3  From  1780  to  the 


1.      Force,  American  Archives,  4th,  V,  1596, 
1597-98. 

2  Scharf,  History  of  Maryland,  II,  205. 

3  Maryland   Archives,    XXI,    399. 


Xavy  of  the  American  Revolution  445 

end  of  the  Revolution  the  trade  in  the  Ches 
apeake,  and  the  property  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Maryland  coasts,  on  both  sides  of  the 
Bay,  suffered  severely  from  the  ravages  of 
the  British  refugee  barges,  privateers,  and 
small  naval  craft.  These  conditions  led 
Maryland  to  make  frequent  attempts,  during 
the  last  years  of  the  war,  to  provide  a  naval 
armament  for  the  defence  of  the  Bay.  In 
1780  she  was  moved  to  renew  her  naval  ac 
tivities  by  still  other  considerations.  The 
success  of  the  British  this  year  in  South  and 
North  Carolina  and  on  the  coasts  of  Vir 
ginia  made  the  outlook  for  Maryland  very 
threatening.  It  was  also  known  that  Clin 
ton  wished  to  carry  the  war  into  Maryland 
and  Virginia. 

In  October,  1780,  Maryland  passed  her 
first  act  for  the  defence  of  the  Bay.  The 
Governor  and  Council  were  ordered  to  pro 
vide,  officer,  and  man  four  large  barges  or 
row-boats,  each  to  carry  at  least  twenty- 
five  men,  one  galley  to  be  armed  with  two 
18's  and  two  9;s,  and  one  sloop  or  schooner 
to  carry  ten  4's.  They  were  to  enlist  one 
hundred  marines  for  three  years.  The  ma 
rines  were  to  be  paid  £2,  5s.  a  month  and  a 
bounty  of  $40,  and  the  seamen  £3  a  month 
and  a  bounty  of  S20.1  During  the  May  ses 
sion  of  the  legislature  in  1781,  just  after  Ar 
nold's  invasion  into  Virginia,  this  act  was 

1.      Statutes  of  Maryland,   October  session 
1780,  chapter  XXXIV. 


446  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

amended.  The  Governor  and  Council  were 
now  directed  to  procure  two  galleys  and  a 
number  of  barges  not  to  exceed  eight.1 

In  passing,  mention  should  be  made  of 
the  service  which  Maryland  rendered  the 
Continental  army  in  1781,  in  transporting 
troops.  When,  in  the  spring  of  that  year, 
Lafayette  and  his  army  were  on  their  way 
to  Virginia  to  attempt  the  capture  of  Ar 
nold,  Maryland  impressed  upwards  of  one 
hundred  transports,  together  with  three 
small  armed  vessels,  which  she  placed  under 
the  command  of  Captain  James  Nicholson. 
This  fleet  carried  a  large  part  of  Lafayette's 
troops,  stores,  guns,  and  baggage  from  the 
head  of  Elk  to  Annapolis.  In  August  and 
September  the  state  rendered  similar  aid  to 
Washington's  army,  which  was  then  on  its 
way  to  Yorktown.  Every  vessel  in  the 
state  was  pressed  into  service.2 

During  the  last  year  of  the  war  the  Brit 
ish  were  especially  annoying  to  the  trade 
and  coasts  of  Maryland  and  Virginia.  Fif 
teen  or  twenty  small  craft  which  made  their 
headquarters  on  the  islands  in  the  Chesa 
peake  were  very  destructive,  and  their  dep 
redations  called  forth  protective  measures 
not  only  in  Maryland,  but  in  Virginia,  as 
we  have  seen.  In  each  state  private  initi- 


1.  Statutes     of     Maryland,     May     session, 
1781,  chapter  XXXIV. 

2.  Scharf,  History  of  Maryland,  II,  439-40, 
456,  461. 


A  dry  of  the  American  Revolution  447 

ative  did  what  it  could  to  stop  the  pillaging, 
but  it  was  not  able  to  cope  with  the  en 
emy. 

On  June  13,  1782,  the  Maryland  legisla 
ture  appointed  William  Paca,  Walter  Tilgh- 
man  and  Robert  Goldsborough  commis 
sioners  to  provide  for  the  defence  of  the  Bay. 
They  were  ordered  to  procure  four  barges 
and  a  galley  or  other  vessel  of  force,  to  fit 
them  for  immediate  service  against  the  en 
emy,  and  to  turn  them  over  to  the  Govern 
or  and  Council  when  ready  to  be  employed. 
The  legislature  also  appointed  William  Han 
son  Harrison,  a  commissioner  to  go  to  Rich 
mond  and  concert  with  the  Virginia  execu 
tive  or  legislature  a  joint  defence  of  the  Bay. 
A  new  naval  establishment  was  now  effected. 
The  Governor  and  Council  were  to  raise  and 
officer  two  hundred  and  fifty  able  seamen, 
watermen,  landsmen,  and  marines,  who  were 
to  serve  until  January  1,  1783,  or  longer. 
They  were  to  fix  the  pay  and  rations  of  the 
officers.  Officers  and  seamen  who  should 
lose  a  limb,  or  be  otherwise  maimed  or  hurt, 
were  to  receive  the  same  benefits  which  the 
state  should  hereafter  give  to  her  soldiers 
in  the  Continental  army.  The  naval  forces 
were  to  be  subject  to  the  naval  rules  and 
regulations  provided  by  Congress  for  the 
Continental  navy.  A  penalty  of  £50  was 
prescribed  for  enticing  seamen  away  from 
the  state  service.  The  expense  incurred 
in  providing  this  naval  increase  was  to  be 


448  Xavy  of  the  American  Revolution 

met  chiefly  from  an  appropriation  of  £10,000 
and  from  the  sale  of  the  confiscated  property 
of  Tories.1 

Owing  to  the  continuance  of  the  depreda 
tions  of  the  British,  the  legislature  in  its 
November  session  of  1782  passed  another 
act  for  the  defence  of  the  Bay.  The  Govern 
or  and  Council  were  directed  to  fit  out  a 
certain  galley  or  ship,  now  building  for  the 
state,  and  the  barges  "Somerset,"  "Terri 
ble,"  "Fearnaught,"  and  "Defence,"  and  en 
list  three  hundred  and  fifty  men  to  serve  until 
January  1, 1784.  Two-thirds  of  the  proceeds 
of  captures  were  now  to  be  given  to  the  cap 
tors.  The  .expense  of  this  establishment 
was  to  be  met  by  import  duties  on  rum, 
brandy,  and  other  distilled  spirits;  on  wine, 
loaf  sugar,  and  coffee;  and  on  all  goods 
and  merchandise,  with  certain  exceptions.2 

The  navy  of  Maryland  rendered  miscel 
laneous  services.  It  convoyed  merchant 
men,  imported  and  distributed  arms  and 
provisions,  transported  troops,  watched  the 
fleet  of  the  enemy  to  report  its  movements, 
and  defended  the  trade  and  coasts  of  the 
state.  Except  when  used  for  commer 
cial  purposes,  Maryland's  vessels  rarely 
passed  outside  the  Capes  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Chesapeake.  Attempts  which  were 


1.      Statutes    of    Maryland,    April    session, 
1782,  Chapter  III. 
_  2. 
sion, 


^j      VxlAd-  L/  Lt-1       J_  J.  J_  . 

Statutes    of    Maryland,    November    ses- 
L,  1782,  Chapter   XXVI. 


A'az'v  of  the  American  Revolution  449 

made  to  bring;  about  the  cooperation  of  the 
Maryland  and  Virginia  fleets  did  not  often 
succeed.  A  few  small  prizes  were  taken, 
but  none  of  them  were  of  much  value.  In 
the  fall  of  1776  the  "Defence/'  Captain  Cook, 
cruised  as  far  southward  as  the  West  Indies, 
and  captured  five  small  prizes,  laden  with 
logwood,  mahogany,  indigo,  rum,  and  sugar.1 
Several  sharp  encounters  between  the  ves 
sels  of  Maryland  and  the  enemy  took  place 
in  the  Bay.  As  early  as  March,  1776,  the 
"Defence,"  22,  Captain  James  Nicholson, 
checked  the  advance  up  the  Chesapeake  of 
the  British  sloop-of-war  "Otter/7  10,  and 
recaptured  several  prizes.2  Now  and  then 
attempts  were  made  to  dislodge  the  British 
from  some  of  the  islands  in  the  Bay.  So 
late  as  the  latter  part  of  March,  1783,  the 
state  sent  a  small  schooner  and  two  barges 
against  a  rendezvous  of  the  British  on 
Devil's  Island,  one  of  the  Tangiers.3 

On  November  30,  1782,  the  Battle  of  the 
Barges  occurred  near  the  Tangier  islands. 
The  mortality  of  the  Americans  in  this  en 
gagement  was  relatively  greater  than  in 
any  other  sea  fight  of  the  Revolution.  In 
its  carnage  and  in  the  bravery  displayed 
by  the  Americans,  this  fight  does  not  suffer 
from  a  comparison  with  that  of  Jones  off 
Flamborough  Head.  The  Maryland  fleet, 

1.  Maryland  Archives.   XII,   500. 

2.  Ridgely,  Annals  of  Annapolis,  175-77. 

3.  Scharf,  History  of  Maryland,  II,  481-82. 


450  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

which  had  been  joined  by  a  volunteer  Vir 
ginia  barge,  was  commanded  by  Commodore 
Whaley  of  the  barge  "Protector."  The  Brit 
ish  fleet  of  barges  was  under  the  command 
of  Captain  Kidd  of  the  "Kidnapper/'  mount 
ing  18-pounders.  For  one  cause  or  another 
the  "Protector"  was  the  only  American  barge 
which  engaged  the  British  fleet.  While  the 
"Protector"  inflicted  much  damage  on  the 
vessels  of  her  adversary,  she  naturally  was 
unable  to  fight  long  against  such  tremendous 
odds.  An  extract  from  the  simple  and 
pathetic  narrative  of  the  fight  written  by  Col 
onel  John  Cropper,  a  volunteer  Virginia  of 
ficer  on  board  the  "Protector,"  possesses  in 
terest:  "Commodore  Whaley  was  shot  down 
a  little  before  the  enemy  boarded,  acting  the 
part  of  a  cool,  intrepid,  gallant  officer.  Cap 
tain  Joseph  Handy  fell  nigh  the  same  time, 
nobly  fighting  with  one  arm,  after  the  loss 
of  the  other.  Captain  Levin  Handy  was 
badly  wounded.  There  went  into  action 
in  the  Protector  sixty-five  men,  twenty-five 
of  them  were  killed  and  drowned,  twenty- 
nine  were  wounded,  some  of  whom  are  since 
dead,  and  eleven  only  escaped  being  wound 
ed,  most  of  whom  leaped  into  the  water  to 
save  themselves  from  the  explosion."  Colo 
nel  Cropper,  to  whom,  on  the  death  of  Wha 
ley,  the  command  of  the  "Protector"  fell, 
was  wounded  three  times,  "and  after  the 


Arai'y  of  the  American  Revolution  451 

surrender  knocked  down  by  a  four-pound 
rammer."1 

During  the  last  years  of  the  war  Maryland 
in  her  attempts  to  defend  the  Chesapeake, 
obtained  as  many  as  ten  barges.2  She  had 
also  in  the  naval  service  at  this  time  a 
schooner,  the  "  Flying  Fish."  The  end  of 
her  navy  may  be  dated  with  the  statute 
passed  by  her  legislature  in  May,  1783, 
which  authorized  the  Intendant  to  sell  "the 
galley  and  the  barges."3 

North  Carolina's  initial  step  in  procuring 
a  naval  armament  was  taken  on  December 
21,  1775,  when  her  Council  of  Safety  re 
solved  to  fit  out  three  armed  vessels  for  the 
defence  of  the  trade  of  the  state.  It  ap- 


1.  Southern    Literary    Messenger,    XXIV, 
(1857),  218,  Colonel  John  Cropper  to  Colonel 
Williams  Davies,  his  superior  in  command  in 
the  Continental  line. 

2.  Scharf  enumerates  the  following  barges: 
"Revenge,"     "Terrible,"     "Intrepid,"      "Pro 
tector,"   "Experiment,"   "Venus,"   "Defence," 
"Reformation,"       "Dolphin,"       and       "Fear- 
naught."      These  barges  were  about  forty-two 
feet    long,    eight    feet    wide,    and   three    deep. 
Each  carried  about  twenty-four  oars,  from  six 
teen  to  thirteen  feet  long,  and  mounted  two 
large  guns. — Scharf,  History  of  Maryland,  II, 
204. 

3.  Statutes    of    Maryland,      April    session, 
1783,  chapter  XVI,  Votes  and  Proceedings  of 
Maryland     Senate,    April    session,     1783,    63. 
For  the  pay-rolls  of  the    "Flying  Fish,"   "De 
fence,"    and     several     Maryland     barges,     see 
Maryland  Archives,   XVIII,  606-15. 


452  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

pointed  three  Boards  of  Commissioners, 
each  of  which  was  to  immediately  purchase. 
arm,  man,  and  victual  a  vessel,.  The  board 
for  Cape  Fear  was  composed  of  five  men ;  for 
Newbern,  of  eight;  and  for  Edenton,  of  six.1 
Since  it  proved  difficult  to  assemble  a  quor 
um  of  the  Newbern  Board,  the  Council  of 
Safety  in  June,  1776,  vested  its  powers  in 
three  of  its  members.2  In  May,  1776,  the 
Provincial  Congress  fixed  the  monthly 
wages  of  officers,  seamen,  and  marines.  Cap 
tains  were  to  be  paid  £10;  lieutenants,  mas 
ters,  captains  of  marines,  and  doctors,  £8 
each;  marines,  £2,  13s.,  4d.;  "seamen  com 
plete/'  £4;  "seamen  not  complete/'  £3.3 

By  October,  1776,  the  Cape  Fear  Board 
had  fitted  out  the  brigantine  " Washing 
ton;"  the  Newbern  Board,  the  brigantine 
"Pennsylvania  Farmer;"  and  the  Edenton 
Board,  the  brigantine  "King  Tammany." 
The  Council  of  Safety  now  ordered  these 
three  vessels  to  protect  the  trade  of  the  state 
at  Ocracoke  Bar,  and  to  proceed  against  the 
enemy's  Jamaicamen  homeward  bound  from 
the  West  Indies.  "It  may  be  necessary  to 
inform  you,"  it  wrote  on  October  1  to  Cap 
tain  Joshua  Hampstead  of  the  "  Pennsyl 
vania  Farmer/'  "that  the  Jamaica  fleet  will 
sail  for  Europe  about  the  middle  of  this 
month  under  the  convoy  of  a  twenty-gun 


1.  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  X,  352. 

2.  Ibid.,  637. 

3.  Ibid.,  584. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  453 

ship  only,  from  the  best  intelligence  we  can 
obtain."1 

For  one  reason  or  another  these  three 
vessels  accomplished  very  little.  For  a  long 
time  the  "Washington,"  Captain  Edward 
Ingraham,  could  not  obtain  a  crew.  The 
"Pennsylvania  Farmer,"  Captain  Joshua 
Hampstead,  was  idle  during  the  summer  of 
1776,  for  lack  of  shot.  James  Davis,  one 
of  the  Commissioners  for  fitting  out  this  ves 
sel,  made  serious  accusations  against  his  fel 
low  Commissioners  and  the  officers  and  crew 
of  the  vessel.  As  Davis  had  suffered  real  or 
supposed  injuries  at  their  hands,  his  words 
no  doubt  must  be  heavily  discounted.  In 
October,  1776,  he  wrote  that  the  "Pennsyl 
vania  Farmer"  lay  in  Newbern  "with  110 
men  on  board  at  the  Expence  of  near  Forty 
Pounds  per  day,  upwards  of  six  months ;  in 
the  most  inglorious,  inactive,  and  dissolute 
state  that  perhaps  was  ever  suffered  in  any 
Country."  The  crew  of  the  vessel  consisted 
of  "men  of  all  nations  and  conditions,  Eng 
lish,  Irish,  Scotch,  Indians,  Men  of  Wars 
Men,and  the  most  abandoned  sett  of  wretches 
ever  collected  together.  Two  of  the  officers 
broke  open  the  Gun  Room,  and  with  a  num 
ber  of  the  men  went  off  witK  the  Boat,  with 
Intent  to  join  Lord  Dunmore's  fleet,  and 
actually  reached  Currituck  County.  They 

1.  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  X, 
831-32,  848-49,  875-77;  North  Carolina  State 
Records,  XI,  356. 


454  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

were  apprehended,  and  are  still  at  large  on 
board.  They  have  wasted  near  100  pounds 
of  powder  in  wantonly  firing  at  and  bring 
ing  to  all  Boats,  Canoes,  and  Vessels  of  every 
sort,  even  Passengers  in  the  Ferry  Boat 
have  been  insulted.  Capt.  Thos.  Shine  of 
the  Militia,  with  his  Company  on  board  com 
ing  up  to  the  General  Muster,  was  fired  on 
and  a  ball  passed  within  a  few  inches  of  his 
Arm."1  These  are  but  few  of  the  derelictions 
contained  in  Davis's  remarkable  list.  His 
overstatement  of  his  case  causes  one  to  sus 
pect  that  he  was  not  entirely  free  from 
malice. 

By  December,  1777,  the  "Washington" 
was  ordered  to  be  sold;  and  commissioners 
had  been  appointed  to  load  the  other  two 
vessels  and  send  them  on  voyages  to  foreign 
ports.  In  April,  1778,  the  legislature  de 
cided  to  sell  the  "Pennsylvania  Farmer." 
On  May  30  this  vessel  at  a  public  sale  in 
Edenton  "was  cried  out  by  John  Blackburn 
on  Mr.  Joseph  Hewes,  after  wrhich  Mr.  Hewes 
denied  having  bid  the  sum  which  she  was 
cried  out  at."2 

No  other  subject  of  naval  interest  en 
gaged  the  attention  of  North  Carolina  so 
much  as  the  defence  of  Ocracoke  Inlet.  It 
is  recalled  that  the  waters  of  Pamlico  and 


1.  North    Carolina    Colonial    Records,     X, 
834-36. 

2.  North  Carolina  State  Records,  XII,  173, 
244,  623,  796. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  455 

Albemarle  Sounds  are  separated  from  the 
Atlantic  by  a  long  sandbar,  which  is  only  at 
a  few  points  broken  by  inlets.  These  con 
nect  the  waters  of  the  Atlantic  with  the 
waters  of  the  Sound.  The  most  important 
inlet  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution  was  that 
of  Ocracoke.  The  protecting  and  the  keep 
ing  open  of  this  entrance  was  a  matter  of  im 
portance  not  only  to  North  Carolina,  but  to 
Virginia  and  the  Continental  Congress,  as 
well.  Most  of  the  foreign  trade  of  Newbern 
and  Edenton,  the  two  main  ports  of  the 
state,  passed  through  this  inlet.  In  a  simi 
lar  way,  the  trade  of  Southern  Virginia,  out 
ward  or  inward  bound,  found  it  convenient 
to  use  this  channel.  In  the  first  years  of  the 
Revolution,  especially  in  1778,  not  a  few 
goods  coming  from  foreign  marts,  and  des 
tined  for  the  Continental  Army,  rather  than 
risk  capture  off  the  entrance  to  the  Chesa 
peake  or  the  Delaware  Bay,  entered  Ocra 
coke,  passed  on  through  Pamlico  and  Albe 
marle  Sounds  into  Chowan  River,  and 
thence  by  the  branches  of  this  river  to  the 
town  of  South  Quay,  in  southern  Virginia, 
near  the  confluence  of  the  Nottaway  and 
Blackwater  rivers.  From  South  Quay  the 
goods  were  carried  by  wagons  to  Suffolk  on 
the  Nansemond,  and  thence  by  boat  up  the 
Nansemond  into  the  James.  This  route 
constituted  the  southern  division  of  the  so- 
called  "Inland  Navigation."  It  was  along 
this  road  that  North  Carolina  salt  pork  and 


456  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

beef,  and  shoes  made  by  North  Carolina 
Quakers,  passed  northward  on  their  way  to 
the  "Grand  Army."  In  1778  and  1779 
South  Quay  and  Suffolk  were  important  en 
trepots  for  Continental  goods. 

Since  the  keeping  open  of  communication 
through  Ocracoke  Inlet  was  of  importance 
to  both  North  Carolina  and  Virginia,  the 
two  states  concerted  a  joint  naval  arma 
ment  for  this  purpose.  On  May  9,  1776, 
the  North  Carolina  Provincial  Congress  ap 
pointed  Allen  and  Thomas  Jones  to  attend 
the  Provincial  Congress  of  Virginia,  "for 
the  purpose  of  recommending  to  them  the 
expediency  of  fitting  out  two  Armed  Vessels 
at  the  expense  of  that  Colony,  to  act  in  con 
junction  with  the  armed  vessels  already 
fitted  out  by  this  Colony  for  the  protection 
of  the  trade  at  Ocracoke."1  As  her  part  of 
the  joint  undertaking,  Virginia  agreed  to 
construct  at  South  Quay  two  galleys,  to  be 
employed  in  the  defence  of  the  Inlet. 

Virginia  carried  out  her  promise,  and  built 
at  the  "South  Quay  ship  yard"  two  ships, 
the  "Caswell"  and  "Washington."2  North 
Carolina  ordered  her  brigantines  to  defend 
Ocracoke;  and  she  voted  £2,000  towards 
the  equipping  of  Virginia's  ships,  and  ap 
pointed  commissioners  to  invest  this  money 
in  anchors,  guns,  rigging,  and  canvas.3 


1.  Force,  American  Archives,  4th,  V,  1357. 

2.  These  vessels  were  at  first  called  galleys. 

3.  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  X,  981. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  457 

Finally,  as  we  shall  see,  she  maintained  at 
her  expense  one  of  the  Virginia  ships  on  the 
station  at  Ocracoke  for  a  considerable 
period.  She  did  not,  however,  meet  Vir 
ginia's  expectations,  which  state  several 
times  expressed  the  belief  that  North  Caro 
lina  had  not  done  her  share  in  keeping  up 
the  joint  establishment.1 

Until  1778  the  trade  which  passed  through 
Ocracoke  was  rather  free  from  annoyance. 
It  was  in  January  of  that  year  that  Joshua 
Martin,  the  late  Royal  Governor  of  North 
Carolina,  wrote  from  New  York  to  Lord 
George  Germaine  in  London:  "That  the 
contemptible  port  of  Ocracock  has  become 
a  great  channel  of  supply  to  the  rebels,  while 
the  more  considerable  ports  have  been 
watched  by  the  King's  ships.  They  have 
received  through  it  considerable  importa 
tions."2  On  January  1,  1778,  there  arrived 
at  Newbern  a  sloop  from  Martinique,  a 
schooner  from  St.  Eustatius,  a  schooner 
with  salt  from  Bermuda,  a  French  schooner 
from  Hispaniola,  and  two  schooners  from 
the  Northern  states;  a  French  scow  was  at 
the  same  time  reported  at  Ocracoke.3  A 
a  letter  from  Edenton,  dated  June  9,  informs 
us  that  several  foreign  vessels  were  at  the 
Inlet,  and  that  a  sloop  had  recently  arrived 

1.  North  Carolina  State  Records,  XIV,  19 
126. 

2.  Ibid.,  XIII,  iii-iv. 

3.  Ibid.,  354. 


458  Xai'y  of  the  American  Revolution 

at  Edcnton  from  France,  which  had  on 
board  for  the  Continental  Congress  thir 
teen  thousand  pairs  of  shoes,  a  large  quan 
tity  of  clothing,  and  a  "  marble  Monument 
for  Genl.  Montgomery."1 

In  the  spring  of  1778  the  North  Carolina 
legislature  voted  to  purchase  from  Virginia 
the  ship  "Caswell,"  stating  that  it  had  not 
been  able  to  keep  its  agreement  with  Vir 
ginia  in  providing  a  joint  defence  of  Ocra- 
coke.  The  legislature  fixed  the  pay  of  the 
officers  and  seamen  on  board  the  "Caswell."2 
In  May  this  ship,  under  the  command  of 
Captain  Willis  Wilson,  with  one  hundred 
and  seventy  men  on  board,  lay  off  Ocracoke 
bar.  Captain  Wilson  reported  to  Governor 
Caswell  on  May  20  that  the  place  was  not  in 
fested  with  British  cruisers, and  that  a  French 
ship  and  brig  lay  outside  the  Inlet,  waiting 
to  come  in.  In  June,  however,  Wilson 
wrote  that  "  the  enemy  (one  ship,  two  sloops, 
and  a  brig)  take  a  peep  at  us  every  now  and 
then,  but  are  not  disposed  to  venture  in."3 
A  sloop  was  now  purchased  at  Beaufort,  to 
act  as  a  tender  for  the  "Caswell,"  and  Rich- 

1.  North    Carolina    State    Records,    XIV, 
154-55. 

2.  Ibid.,  XII,  574-75,  742,  746;  XIII,  138- 
39,  171-72.      In  June,  1779,  Governor  Jefferson 
of  Virginia  wrote  to  Governor  Caswell  offering 
to  sell  both  the  "Caswell"  and  "Washington." 
Virginia  had  found  the  trade   through   Ocra 
coke    inconvenient.  —  North     Carolina    State 
Records,  XIV,  120,   136. 

3.  Ibid.,  XIII,  132,  171. 


ATavy  of  the  American  Revolution  459 

arcl  Ellis  was  appointed  agent  at  Newbern 
to  purchase  provisions  and  naval  supplies.1 

In  December,  1778,  the  "Caswell"  was 
still  afloat,  but  by  June,  1779,  she  had  sunk 
at  her  station  at  Ocracoke.2  With  the  loss 
of  this  vessel  North  Carolina's  naval  enter 
prises  came  to  an  end.  Her  attention  was 
now  engrossed  by  threatening  invasions  of 
the  enemy  from  South  Carolina. 

North  Carolina  maintained  admiralty 
courts  at  several  ports  on  the  coast.  There 
were  such  courts  at  Beaufort,  Bath,  Roa- 
noke  and  Currituck.  As  early  as  April  25, 
1776,  a  special  court  of  admiralty  was  ap 
pointed  to  try  a  prize  case.3  A  few  of  the 
privateers  of  this  state  rendered  valuable 
services.  The  brig  "Bellona,"  16,  Captain 
Pendleton,  fitted  out  at  Newbern,  cruised 
very  successfully. 

Georgia's  naval  armament  w^as  small  and 
unimportant.  Her  Provincial  Congress, 
however,  commissioned  one  of  the  first 
armed  vessels  of  the  Revolution.  In  June, 
1775,  it  gave  Captains  Oliver  Bowen  and 
Joseph  Habersham  command  of  a  10-gun 
schooner,  and  directed  them  to  assist  Cap 
tains  Joyner  and  Barnwell  of  South  Caro 
lina  in  capturing  a  certain  British  ship,  laden 
with  powder,  and  expected  to  arrive  at  Sa- 


1.  North    Carolina    State    Records,   XIII, 
138-39,   174-75. 

2.  Ibid.,  XIV,  136. 

3.  Force,  American  Archives,  4th,  V,  1339. 


460  Nary  of  the  American  Revolution 

vannah.  On  July  10  the  joint  forces  of  the 
two  states  captured  the  ship  and  obtained 
thirteen  thousand  pounds  of  the  highly 
prized  article.  Georgia  sent  five  thousand 
of  her  share  of  nine  thousand  pounds  to  the 
Continental  Congress  at  Philadelphia.1 

On  July  5,  1776,  the  Continental  Congress 
resolved  to  build  four  galleys  under  the  direc 
tion  of  the  Georgia  Provincial  Congress.2  In 
August  the  Committee  of  Safety  was  build 
ing  some  row-galleys,  and  also  fitting  out  an 
armed  vessel  for  which  purpose  £2,000 
were  voted.  On  August  28  the  Committee 
of  Safety  ordered  Captain  Bowen  to  go  to 
Hispaniola  to  purchase  armed  vessels  to  the 
amount  of  £3,000,  materials  for  fitting  out 
vessels,  and  various  warlike  stores.  In  Oc 
tober  it  ordered  Captain  Pray  to  go  to  Cape 
Francois  on  a  similar  errand.  Pray  was 
authorized  to  mount  on  his  vessel  carrying 
his  purchases  to  Georgia  as  many  guns  as  it 
would  conveniently  bear.3  Whether  these 
two  men  actually  carried  out  their  com 
missions  is  not  known. 

In  the  spring  of  1777  Georgia  had 
three  galleys  in  service,  and  later  she  had  a 
fourth.  These  were  named  the  "Washing- 


1.  Jones,   History  of  Georgia,   II,   181. 

2.  Journals  of  Continental  Congress,  July 
5,   1776. 

3.  Collections    of    Georgia     Historical    So 
ciety,  V,  part  I ;  Proceedings  of  Georgia  Coun 
cil  of  Safety,  96,  101-02,  113. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  461 

ton,"  "Lee,"  "Bulloch,"  and  "Congress." 
This  little  fleet  was  placed  under  the  com 
mand  of  Commodore  Oliver  Bowen,  and  it 
was  employed  on  the  Georgia  seacoast  chiefly 
in  conjunction  with  the  army.  Under  or 
ders  of  President  Gwinnett  three  of  the  gal 
leys  commanded  by  Commodore  Bowen  as 
sisted  the  army  in  its  unsuccessful  expedi 
tion  against  East  Florida  in  April  and  May, 
1777. l  In  April,  1778,  off  Frederica,  Geor 
gia,  the  "Washington,"  Captain  Hardy, 
"Lee,"  Captain  Braddock,  and  "Bulloch," 
Captain  Hatcher,  with  three  hundred  troops 
on  board,  captured  His  Majesty's  brigan- 
tine  "Hinchinbrooke,"  12,  the  sloop  "Re 
becca,"  and  a  brig.2 

In  the  campaign  around  Savannah  early 
in  1779  all  four  galleys  were  lost.  In  Janu 
ary  the  "Washington"  and  "Bulloch"  were 
stranded  near  Ossabaw  Island  on  the  Geor 
gia  coast,  and  were  burned  by  their  crews, 
to  prevent  their  capture.  In  March,  1779, 
the  "Congress,"  Captain  Campbell,  and  the 
"Lee,"  Captain  Milligan,  engaged  near  Ya- 
masee  Bluff  the  British  galleys  "Comet"  and 
"Hornet."  The  Americans,  after  losing 
three  killed,  among  whom  was  Captain 
Campbell,  and  six  wounded,  were  forced  to 
abandon  their  galleys.  Out  of  104  men  on 


1.  Jones,  History  of  Georgia,  II,  269. 

2.  McCall,   History  of  Georgia,   II,  137-38; 
Moultrie,    Memoirs    of    American    Revolution 
II,  375. 


462  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

board  the  American  galleys  the  British  cap 
tured  but  ten.1  The  occupation  of  South 
ern  Georgia  by  the  enemy  from  this  time  un 
til  the  end  of  the  Revolution  stopped  fur 
ther  naval  endeavors  on  the  part  of  the  Pa 
triot  party  of  the  state. 

Georgia  had  a  prize  court  in  operation  as 
early  as  November,  1776.  Her  constitution 
of  February,  1777,  provided  for  the  hearing 
of  prize  cases  by  special  county  courts,  much 
as  in  Connecticut.2 


1.  McCall,  History  of  Georgia,  II,  179,  224- 
25. 

2.  Jameson,  Essays  in  Constitutional  His 
tory  of  United  States,  10. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

THE  MINOR    NAVIES  OF  THE  NORTHERN 
STATES 

Rhode  Island  was  the  first  colony  to  un 
dertake  a  defence  by  means  of  armed  vessels. 
Her  initial  legislation  preceded  that  of  the 
Continental  Congress  by  almost  four  months. 
During  1775  her  coasts  and  trade  were  an 
noyed  by  the  vessels  of  the  enemy.  In  the 
early  summer  the  conduct  of  Captain  James 
Wallace,  the  commander  of  His  Majesty's 
frigate  "Rose/'  was  especially  vexatious 
and  insulting.  On  June  13  Nicholas  Cooke, 
Deputy-Governor  of  Rhode  Island,  in  ac 
cordance  with  a  resolution  of  the  General 
Assembly,  wrote  to  Wallace  demanding  the 
immediate  restoration  of  certain  captured 
vessels,  and  especially  of  two  packets  be 
longing  to  citizens  of  Providence.  The  acts 
of  Wallace  were  obviously  in  the  minds  of 
the  members  of  the  General  Assembly, 
when,  on  June  15,  it  ordered  the  Committee 
of  Safety  to  charter  and  fit  out  two  suitable 
vessels  for  the  defence  of  the  trade  of  Rhode 
Island. 


464  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

The  General  Assembly  also  appointed  a 
committee  of  three  to  appraise  and  hire  the 
two  vessels.  It  ordered  the  larger  vessel  to 
be  equipped  with  eighty  men  and  ten  4- 
pounders;  the  smaller  vessel  was  to  be 
manned  with  not  more  than  thirty  men.  It 
appointed  Abraham  Whipple  commander 
of  the  larger  vessel  with  the  rank  and  power 
of  commodore  over  both  vessels,  and  named 
his  lieutenants,  master,  and  quarter-master. 
Officers  wrere  also  chosen  for  the  smaller  ves 
sel.  The  establishment  of  the  little  fleet 
was  assimilated  to  that  of  the  land  forces  of 
the  state.  Its  cruises  were  to  be  determined 
by  the  Lieutenant-General,  Brigadier-Gen 
eral,  and  the  Committee  of  Safety.1 

Two  sloops,  the  "Katy"  and  "Washing 
ton,"  were  at  once  chartered.  Commodore 
Whipple  tells  us  that  on  the  same  day  he  re 
ceived  his  commission,  June  15,  he  captured 
a  tender  of  the  frigate  "Rose."2  This  was 
the  first  authorized  capture  of  a  naval  ves 
sel  of  the  enemy.  During  the  summer  of 
1775  the  "Katy"  and  "Washington"  cruised 
chiefly  in  Narragansett  Bay  for  the  defence 
of  Rhode  Island.  In  August  the  "Wash 
ington"  was  sent  outside  of  the  Bay  to  warn 
incoming  vessels  laden  with  powder  and 
warlike  stores  of  their  danger  from  British 
craft.  It  was  at  this  time  that  Washington 


1.  Acts    and    Resolves    of    Rhode    Island, 
June,  1775. 

2.  Staples,  Annals  of  Providence,  265. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  465 

proposed  that  one  of  the  sloops  should  be 
sent  to  the  Bermudas  for  powder,  which 
military  necessity  was  much  needed  by  his 
army.1  Commodore  Whipple,  in  the  "Katy," 
was  dispatched  on  this  errand  in  September. 
Arriving  at  the  Bermudas,  Whipple  found 
that  he  had  come  too  late  as  the  powder  had 
already  been  sent  to  Philadelphia. 

It  was  while  the  "Katy"  was  on  this  er 
rand  that  Governor  Cooke,  on  October  10, 
received  orders  from  the  Continental  Con 
gress  to  send  his  little  fleet  to  the  northward 
to  intercept  two  British  transports.  The 
" Washington"  was  unfit  for  so  large  an  un 
dertaking.  The  "Katy,"  having  arrived 
from  the  Bermudas,  was  ordered  on  No 
vember  12,  1775,  to  cruise  between  Nan- 
tucket  Shoals  and  Halifax.  Later  her  desti 
nation  was  changed,  and  she  was  directed 
to  carry  to  Philadelphia  the  seamen  which 
Commodore  Esek  Hopkins  had  enlisted  for 
the  Continental  service.2  On  the  arrival  of 
the  "Katy"  in  Philadelphia  she  was  taken 
into  the  Continental  service  under  the  name 
of  the  "Providence."  About  the  same  time 
the  "Washington"  was  in  all  probability 
returned  to  her  owner,  as  she  had  become 
more  or  less  unseaworthy. 

Meantime  the  General  Assembly  had  or- 


1.  Force,  American  Archives,  4th,  III,  69 

2.  Ibid.,    36-37,    461,    653;    Collections    01 
Rhode    Island   Historical  Society,  VI,  134-35; 
see  Chapter  I,  page  55. 


466  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

dcrcd  the  construction  of  two  galleys,  to  carry 
sixty  men,  to  have  fifteen  oars  on  a  side, 
and  to  mount  one  18-pounder  in  the  bow.1 
The  work  was  placed  under  the  direction  of 
a  superintendent.  In  January,  1776,  the 
General  Assembly  appointed  John  Grimes 
commodore  of  the  galleys  at  a  salary  of  £9 
a  month.  The  galleys  were  named  the 
"Washington"  and  "Spitfire."  They  ren 
dered  a  variety  of  services  in  the  Bay, 
cruising  in  defence  of  trade,  acting  as  trans 
ports,  and  covering  landing  parties  sent 
after  forage  and  supplies.2  In  July,  1776, 
they  were  ordered  to  proceed  to  New  York 
and  to  assist  in  the  defence  of  the  Hudson.3 
It  is  probable,  that  this  detail  was  not  car 
ried  out.  By  the  summer  of  1778  they  had 
been  captured  or  destroyed  by  the  enemy. 

From  June,  1775,  until  December,  1776, 
naval  administration  in  Rhode  Island  dur 
ing  the  recess  of  the  General  Assembly,  was 
vested  in  the  Committee  of  Safety,  or  Re 
cess  Committee,  as  it  was  sometimes  called. 
This  Committee,  as  constituted  by  the  ses 
sion  of  the  General  Assembly  beginning  on 
October  31,  1775,  consisted  of  the  Governor 


1.  Acts    and    Resolves    of    Rhode    Island, 
August,  1775. 

2.  Providence  Gazette,  April  20,  April  27, 
1776;  Acts  and  Resolves  of  Rhode  Island,  No 
vember,  December,   1776;  Arnold,  History  of 
Rhode  Island,  II,  397. 

3.  Rhode     Island     Colonial    Records,    VII, 
582. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  467 

and  eighteen  members,  together  with  such 
members  of  the  General  Assembly  as  hap 
pened  to  be  present  at  the  meetings  of  the 
Committee.  Any  seven  members  consti 
tuted  a  quorum.  The  composition  of  the 
Committee  varied  slightly  at  different  times. 
On  Deceniber  13,  1776,  a  Council  of  War  was 
appointed,  with  whom  naval  administra 
tion  was  now  vested.  The  Council  of  War, 
which  included  the  Governor  and  Lieuten- 
ant-Governor,  consisted  of  nine  members, 
any  five  of  whom  formed  a  quorum.  In 
May,  1778,  a  Council  of  War  comprising 
twenty-one  members,  and  representative 
of  the  whole  state  was  chosen.  The  Coun 
cil  of  War  was  virtually  the  Committee  of 
Safety  under  a  change  of  name.1 

In  January,  1776,  the  General  Assembly 
appointed  a  committee  of  three  to  draw  up 
a  bill  establishing  a  prize  court.  On  March 
18  a  bill  became  a  law  which  established  a 
court  of  justice  for  the  trying  of  prize  cases. 
It  was  to  be  presided  over  by  a  judge,  ap 
pointed  annually.  The  same  act  estab 
lished  state  privateering.  Privateersmen 
were  to  enter  into  bond  for  £2,000  to  ob 
serve  the  provisions  of  the  act  and  the  in 
structions  of  the  Governor.  They  were  to 
be  commissioned  by  the  Governor.  In 
May,  1776,  this  act  was  brought  into  con 
formity  with  the  resolutions  of  Congress  on 

1.  Acts  and  Resolves  of  Rhode  Island,  De 
cember,  1776.  May.  1778. 


THE 

|    UNIVERSITY  } 
.to,   °!_. 


468  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

the  same  subject.  Captors  were  given  one- 
half  of  all  armed  vessels  and  one-third  of  all 
other  prizes.1  A  list  containing  the  names 
of  193  privateers  from  Rhode  Island  has 
been  compiled.2 

In  June,  1777,  the  General  Assembly  un 
dertook  to  add  two  armed  vessels  to  the 
naval  force  of  the  state,  but  for  some  reason 
its  order  was  not  carried  out.3  The  same 
resolution  directed  the  Council  of  War  to 
procure  three  merchantmen  to  be  used  in 
importing  supplies.  The  ship  "Aurora" 
and  sloop  "Diamond"  wrere  two  of  the  vessels 
purchased  for  commercial  purposes. 

For  a  time  Rhode  Island  relied  in  part  for 
her  naval  defence  upon  the  two  Continental 
frigates,  "Providence"  and  "Warren,"  which 
were  built  at  Providence  in  1776,  and  offi 
cered  and  manned  largely  with  Rhode  Isl 
and  men.  The  General  Assembly  and  the 
Council  of  War  furthered  the  work  of  the 
local  naval  committee  which  had  charge  of 
the  construction  of  the  frigates.  These  two 
ships  left  Providence  early  in  1778.  During 
1778  and  1779  the  state  continued  to  depend 
upon  Continental  assistance. 

It  is  recalled  that  during  the  summer  of 
1778  Washington  concerted  with  the  French 

1.  Acts    and    Resolves    of    Rhode    Island, 
March,  May,  1776. 

2.  W.    P.    Sheffield,    Rhode    Island    Priva 
teers  and  Privateersmen. 

3.  Acts    and    Resolves    of    Rhode    Island, 
June,  1777. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  469 

fleet  a  campaign  to  drive  the  British  from 
Newport.  General  Sullivan  commanded  the 
land  forces  of  the  Americans.  On  June  25, 
1778,  Congress  directed  the  Navy  Board  at 
Boston  to  build  three  galleys,  or  procure 
three  suitable  vessels,  for  the  defence  of  the 
Providence,  Warren,  and  Taunton  rivers  in 
Rhode  Island,  if  upon  advising  with  the 
Rhode  Island  Council  of  War  and  General 
Sullivan,  the  Navy  Board  should  find  such 
measure  expedient.  At  a  conference  of 
the  Navy  Board,  the  Council  of  War,  and 
Sullivan  it  was  decided  to  procure  one  large 
ship.  Such  a  vessel  was  obtained  by  Sulli 
van,  but  he  was  compelled  soon  to  return 
it  to  its  owners.1  With  the  consent  and 
recommendation  of  the  Rhode  Island 
authorities,  Sullivan,  in  November,  pro 
cured  the  "Pigot"  galley,  and  in  the 
spring  of  1779  the  sloop  "Argo."2  First  the 
"Pigot,"  and  later  the  "Argo,"  was  placed 
under  the  command  of  Lieutenant-Colonel 
Silas  Talbot,  of  the  Continental  army. 

Already  Talbot  had  been  twice  recom 
mended  by  Congress  for  promotion  on  ac 
count  of  gallant  conduct  in  naval  exploits. 
The  Rhode  Island  General  Assembly  had 

1.  Publications  of  Rhode  Island  Historical 
Society,  VIII,  papers  of  William  Vernon  and 
Navy  Board,  249,  250. 

2."  Journals  of  Rhode  Island  Council  of 
War,  July  17,  August  24,  November  11,  1781; 
Acts  and  Resolves  of  Rhode  Island,  Febru 
ary,  1779. 


4/o  Xary  of  the  American  Revolution 

recognized  his  bravery  in  capturing  the 
"Pigot"  galley  off  the  coast  of  Rhode  Island 
in  October,  1778,  by  voting  him  a  "genteel 
silver-hilted  sword. "  As  commander  of  the 
"Pigot"  and  later  of  the  "Argo,"  Talbot 
was  under  the  orders  of  Sullivan,  and  of 
Gates,  Sullivan's  successor.  During  the 
summer  of  1779  Talbot  in  the  "Argo,"  as 
sisted  at  times  by  privateers  and  the  state 
vessels  of  Massachusetts,  captured  fifteen 
small  prizes.1  As  a  reward  for  the  conspic 
uous  ability  which  he  showed  in  this  work, 
Congress  made  him  a  captain  in  the  Conti 
nental  navy.  Early  in  1780  the  "Pigot" 
and  "Argo"  closed  their  services  under  Con 
tinental  and  state  auspices. 

Rhode  Island's  last  naval  enterprise  was 
made  in  1781.  In  May  of  that  year  the 
General  Assembly  appointed  a  committee 
to  "charter  a  suitable  fast  sailing  Vessel,  in 
order  to  be  fitted  out  as  a  Cruiser  to  clear 
the  Coast  of  the  piratical  Boats  that  infest 
the  same."  The  committee  was  voted 
$5,000,  and  was  ordered  to  man  the  vessel, 
appoint  its  officers,  and  send  it  to  sea.  It 
was  directed  to  procure  a  small  vessel  of 
thirty  to  fifty  tons  burden,  mounting  four 
3-pounders  or  4-pounders.  It  at  once  ob 
tained  the  sloop  "Rover,"  which  it  placed 

1.  Providence  Gazette,  August  14,  Sep 
tember  25,  1779;  Connecticut  Gazette,  June 
24,  1779;  Pennsjrlvania  Packet,  September 
9,  1779. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  471 

under  the  command  of  Captain  Richard  01- 
ney.  The  "Rover"  served  the  state  but  a 
short  time,  and  accomplished  little.1 

New  York  was  led  to  purchase  her  first 
armed  vessel  in  order  to  prevent  persons  in 
imical  to  the  liberties  of  the  American  Colo 
nies  from  supplying  the  Ministerial  army  and 
navy  with  provisions.  It  was  for  this  pur 
pose  that  her  Provincial  Congress  on  De 
cember  20,  1775,  appointed  a  committee  of 
two  to  buy,  arm,  and  fit  out  a  proper  vessel 
at  a  cost  not  to  exceed  £600.  The  com 
mittee  purchased  the  sloop  "General  Schuy- 
ler,"  and  by  March,  1776,  had  the  vessel 
ready  for  service.  James  Smith,  who  in 
the  summer  of  1775  had  served  as  "Commo 
dore  on  the  Lakes,"  that  is,  Lakes  Cham- 
plain  and  George,  was  appointed  commander 
of  the  "General  Schuyler."  In  March  the 
Provincial  Congress  ordered  the  sloop  "Bish 
op  Landaff"  to  be  fitted  out.2 

On  March  11,  1776,  the  Provincial  Con 
gress  appointed  five  of  its  members,  all 
from  New  York,  a  Marine  Committee.  It 
empowered  this  Committee  "to  take  such 
measures,  and  give  such  directions,  and  em 
ploy  such  persons  for  the  protection  or  ad 
vantage  of  trade  as  they  may  think  proper, 
useful,  or  necessary."  The  Marine  Com- 


1.  Acts    and    Resolves    of    Rhode    Island, 
May  and  October,  1781. 

2.  Journals  of  New  York  Provincial  Con 
gress,  December  20,  1775,  March  9,  1776. 


472  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

mittce  was  a  permanent  navy  board  vested 
with  the  management  and  direction  of  the 
naval  affairs  of  the  state.  Three  of  its 
members  formed  a  quorum.  Thomas  Ran 
dall  was  its  chairman.  It  was  authorized  to 
keep  secret  such  matters  as  it  saw  fit.  It 
reported  to  the  Provincial  Congress,  when 
the  Congress  was  in  session,  and  at  other 
times  to  the  Committee  of  Safety.  It  was 
directed  to  apply  to  the  Provincial  Congress 
when  in  need  of  advice.1  In  March  and 
April  it  purchased  the  sloop  "Montgomery," 
and  the  schooner  "General  Putnam/'  and 
sold  the  "Bishop  LandaftV'2 

On  April  17  the  New  York  Committee  of 
Safety  issued  commissions  to  Captain  Wil 
liam  Rodgers  of  the  "Montgomery,"  Cap 
tain  James  Smith  of  the  "General  Schuy- 
ler,"  and  Captain  Thomas  Cregier  of  the 
"General  Putnam."  Rather  singularly, 
these  captains  executed  bonds  in  favor  of 
John  Hancock,  President  of  the  Continental 
Congress,  and  were  given  the  commissions 
of  Continental  privateers.  The  naval  es 
tablishment  of  New  York  was  a  mixed  one. 
Her  fleet  was  governed  by  the  Continental 
naval  rules  and  regulations.  The  enlisting 
contract  of  the  "Montgomery"  reads  at 
points  as  if  the  vessel  belonged  to  the  Con- 


1.  Journals  of  New  York  Provincial  Con 
gress,  March  11,  1776. 

2.  Journals    of    New    York    Committee  of 
Safety,  April  25,  1776. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  473 

tinental  Congress:  "The  said  William  Rog 
ers,  for  and  in  behalf  of  himself  and  the  said 
Thirteen  Colonies  of  North  America,  doth 
hereby  covenant  and  agree  to  and  with  said 
officers,  seamen,  and  marines"  to  advance 
a  month's  wages.  In  sharing  prizes,  in 
granting  bounties  to  wounded  soldiers,  and 
in  rewarding  exceptional  merit,  the  contract 
followed  the  naval  regulations  of  the  Conti 
nental  Congress.1  On  the  other  hand,  the 
three  vessels  were  owned,  fitted  out,  offi 
cered,  and  manned  by  New  York,  which 
state  directed  their  cruises,  and  paid  their 
officers  and  seamen.  This  mixed  estab 
lishment  may  in  part  be  explained  by  the 
fact  that  at  first  New  York's  intention  was 
to  have  Congress  take  her  vessels  into  the 
Continental  service.2 

On  the  evacuation  of  Boston  by  the  Brit 
ish  on  March  17,  1776,  Washington  at  once 
proceeded  to  New  York,  whither,  it  is  recol 
lected,  the  scene  of  war  soon  shifted.  In 
April  Washington  asked  for  the  loan  of  the 
New  York  vessels  to  assist  in  the  defence 
of  New  York  city.  After  some  disagree 
ment  as  to  the  terms  upon  which  he 
should  receive  them,  the  "General  Put 
nam"  and  the  "General  Schuvler"  were 


1.  Journals    of    New    York    Committee  of 
Safety,  April     19,     1776;    Fernow,    New  York 
in   Revolution,  530-33. 

2.  Journals  of  New  York  Provincial  Con 
gress,  January  22,  1776. 


474  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

turned  over  to  him.1  Hereafter  the  state 
seems  not  to  have  had  the  direction  of  the 
"General  Schuyler."  In  October,  1776,  a 
mutiny  having  occurred  on  board  the  "Gen 
eral  Putnam/'  the  New  York  Committee  of 
Safety  ordered  this  vessel  to  be  sold.2 

New  York's  fleet  captured  some  eight  or 
ten  prizes.  It  cruised  chiefly  in  the  waters 
surrounding  Long  Island.  The  "Montgom 
ery"  had  best  success.  On  April  19,  1776,  the 
Marine  Committee  reported  to  the  Committee 
of  Safety  a  draft  of  instructions  for  Captain 
Rodgers.  He  was  ordered  to  cruise  between 
Sandy  Hook  and  Cape  May,  or  from  Sandy 
Hook  to  the  east  end  of  Long  Island,  and 
he  was  cautioned  to  always  keep  "some  in 
let  under  your  lee,  so  that  you  may  secure 
a  retreat  from  a  superior  force."3  Prizes 
were  to  be  sent  to  some  place  of  safety  in 
the  United  Colonies.  The  "Montgomery" 
cruised  in  this  general  region  until  June, 
1777;  in  July  she  was  sold  for  £3,550.  She 
captured  several  merchantmen,  which  were 
libeled  in  the  admiralty  courts  of  Rhode  Isl 
and,  Connecticut,  and  Maryland.  In  the 
condemning  and  selling  of  these  prizes, 
New  York's  interests  were  attended  to  by 
agents  appointed  for  the  purpose.  The 

1.  Journals  of    New    York    Committee   of 
Safety,  April  24,  May  10,  1776. 

2.  Ibid.,     September     21,     September    24, 
October  7,   1776. 

3.  Ibid.,  April  19,  1776. 


Xavy  of  the  American  Revolution  475 

"Montgomery's"  most  valuable  prize  was  the 
schooner  "Hannah,"  libeled  in  Baltimore, 
which,  with  her  cargo  of  clothing,  cloths, 
and  provisions,  sold  for  £11,281.  Another 
prize,  the  "Minerva,"  with  a  cargo  of  salt, 
was  tried  by  the  court  at  the  same  time  with 
the  "Hannah,"  and  was  freed;  whereupon, 
Francis  Lewis,  a  delegate  of  New  York  to 
the  Continental  Congress,  which  was  then 
in  session  in  Baltimore,  appealed  the  case  of 
the  "Minerva"  to  Congress.1 

In  August,  1776,  the  Secret  Committee, 
which  was  assisting  in  the  defence  of  the 
Hudson,  was  fitting  out  two  small  armed 
sloops,  the  "Camden"  and  "Hudson."2  As 
late  as  January,  1777,  the  Committee  of 
Safety  was  planning  for  a  naval  armament; 
orders  were  then  given  for  cutting  the  tim 
bers  for  a  74-gun  ship.3  The  permanent  oc 
cupation  of  New  York  city  by  the  British 
stopped  New  York's  naval  enterprises  on 
state  account.  She  continued,  however,  to 
grant  a  few  privateering  commissions,  until 
the  end  of  the  war.  In  passing,  one  should 
mention  that  in  1776  New  York  contributed 
officers,  seamen,  and  naval  supplies  to  Ar 
nold's  campaign  on  lakes  Champlain  and 

1.  Journals    of    New    York  Committee  of 
Safety,  February   13,    1777;    Journals  of  New 
York  Provincial  Congress,  April  1,  1777. 

2.  Journals  of   New   York   Provincial  Con 
gress,  August  16,  1776. 

3.  Journals   of    New    York    Committee    of 
Safety,  January  15,  1777. 


476  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

George.  By  the  terms  of  New  York's  Con 
stitution  of  1777  the  Governor  was  "com- 
mander-in-chief  of  all  the  militia  and  ad 
miral  of  the  navy  of  this  state."  The  Con 
stitution  implied  that  there  was  to  be  a 
Court  of  Admiralty,  although  it  did  not 
make  definite  provision  for  such  court.1 

New  Hampshire's  only  naval  undertaking 
was  her  participation,  at  the  suggestion  of 
Massachusetts,  in  the  Penobscot  expedition 
of  July,  1779.  She  contributed  to  the  ill- 
starred  fleet  the  "Hampden,"  22,  Captain 
Titus  Salter,  which  vessel  was  captured  by 
the  British.2  On  July  3,  1776,  New 
Hampshire  passed  an  act  "to  encourage  the 
fixing  out  of  Armed  Vessels  to  defend  the 
seacoast  of  America,  and  to  cruise  on  the  en 
emies  of  the  United  Colonies,  as  also  for 
erecting  a  court  to  try  and  condemn  all 
Ships  and  other  Vessels."  This  act  was  mod 
eled  on  similar  acts  of  Massachusetts.  It 
established  state  privateering.  A  "Court 
Maritime,"  consisting  of  one  judge,  was 
erected  at  Portsmouth  to  try  cases  of  cap 
ture.  Salvage  was  prescribed  in  accordance 

1.  New   York   Constitution   of    1777.      See 
Carson,  Supreme  Court  of  United  States,  p.  45, 
for  further  references  to  the  admiralty  legisla 
tion  of  New  York. 

2.  New    Hampshire   Archives,    VIII,    106, 
186,   195.      In  March,   1776,  the  New  Hamp 
shire    House   of    Representatives   appointed  a 
committee  of  three  to  look  out  for  an  armed 
vessel  to  guard  the  coast.      It  is  believed  that 
no  vessel  was  procured. 


Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  477 

with  the  proportions  fixed  by  the  Conti 
nental  Congress.  In  cases  of  prizes  cap 
tured  by  a  Continental  vessel,  appeals  lay 
from  the  Court  Maritime  to  the  Continental 
Congress.1 

In  July,  1776,  a  Committee  of  Newark, 
New  Jersey,  requested  the  New  Jersey  Pro 
vincial  Congress  to  build  four  "gondolas/' 
or  row-galleys,  to  be  mounted  with  can 
non,  and  to  ply  between  the  mouths  of  the 
Passaic  and  Hackensack  rivers  and  the 
town  of  Perth  Amboy.  The  Provincial 
Congress  referred  the  proposition  to  a  com 
mittee  of  four.  It  finally  ended  the  busi 
ness  by  referring  the  report  of  this  commit 
tee  to  the  Continental  Congress.2 

Until  October  5,  1776,  when  New  Jersey 
passed  an  act  establishing  an  admiralty 
court,  her  Provincial  Congress  decided  prize 
cases.  So  early  as  February  15,  1776,  a 
committee  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  which 
had  been  appointed  to  draft  an  ordinance 
for  erecting  a  Court  of  Admiralty,  reported 
that  it  had  consulted  William  Livingston, 
one  of  the  New  Jersey  delegates  to  the  Con 
tinental  Congress,  on  the  subject,  and  had 
proposed  to  him,  whether  it  would  not  be  of 
manifest  advantage  to  the  Colonies  if  "Con- 


1.  Force,      American     Archives,      5th,      I, 
90-96. 

2.  Minutes    of     Provincial     Congress    and 
Council  of  Safety  of   New  Jersey,    1775-1776, 
510,  520,  525,  528. 


478  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution 

gress  should,  by  one  general  ordinance,  in 
stitute  the  powers  and  mode  of  erecting  a 
Court  of  Admiralty  to  be  adopted  by  all  the 
Colonies."  Livingston  agreed  to  take  the 
first  opportunity  for  proposing  the  matter 
to  Congress.1  Nothing  came  of  the  recom 
mendation. 

1.  Minutes  of  Provincial  Congress  and 
Council  of  Safety  of  New  Jersey,  1775-1776 
370-71,  396,  479. 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX  A 

A  BIBLIOGRAPHY 


THE  CONTINENTAL  NAVY 

MANUSCRIPT  SOURCES 

Adams,  John.  Letters  for  1775  and  1776,  de 
posited  for  the  present  by  Charles  Francis 
Adams  with  the  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society,  Boston. 

A  few  letters  are  valuable  for  the  early 
history  of  the  Continental  Navy. 
Continental  Congress.      Manuscript  Journals. 
Supplements    and    corrects    the    printed 
journals. 

Continental  Congress.  Records  and  Papers, 
formerly  found  in  the  Bureau  of  Rolls  and 
Library,  Department  of  State,  Washington; 
but  now  in  most  part  in  the  Library  of  Con 
gress,  Division  of  Manuscripts.  There  are 
many  volumes  o*  these  documents.  Most  of 
the  material  relating  to  the  navy  is  found  in 
the  following  volumes: 
No.  28,  1  vol.,  Reports  of  committees  of 

Congress  on  naval  affairs,  1776-1786. 
No.  37,  1  vol.,  Reports   of    Marine   Commit 
tee  and  Board  of  Admiralty,  1776-1780. 


482  Bibliography 


No.  50,  1  vol.,    Letters    of    Oliver    Pollock; 

Commercial    Agent    at    New    Orleans,    to 

President  and  to  committees  of   Congress, 

1776-1782. 

No.  58,  1  vol.,  Letters  and   Papers  of  John 

Hancock. 

No.  78,  24  vols.,  Letters  to  President  of  Con 
gress. 

No.  90,    1    vol.,    Letters   of   the   commercial 
agents     at     Martinique     to     President     of 
Congress. 
No.  137,    3    vols.,    Letters    and    Reports    of 

Robert  Morris,  Agent  of  Marine. 
No.  138,   3  vols.,   Reports  of  the   Board  01 

Treasury,  1784-1789. 
Nos.  82-96,  132,   168,   and  193. 

The  Records    and    Papers    of  the   Conti 
nental   Congress    are    especially    valuable 
for  the  years    from   1780  to  1783.      They 
contain    many   important  letters  of  John 
Paul  Jones.     The  letters  of  Pollock  give  a 
full  account  of  his  services  at  New  Orleans. 
Deane,  Silas.      Papers    in    the    library    of    the 
Connecticut  Historical  Society,  Hartford. 

A  few  of  these  papers  relate  to  the  navy. 
Force  Transcripts.  These  are  copies  of  many 
of  the  Records  and  Papers  of  the  Continent 
al  Congress,  made  by  Peter  Force,  and  now 
in  the  possession  of  the  Library  of  Congress, 
Division  of  Manuscripts. 

The  copying  is  accurately  done.  The 
pagination  often  differs  from  that  of  the 
originals. 

Hopkins,  Esek.  Letters  and  papers,  in  the  li 
brary  of  the  Rhode  Island  Historical  Society, 
Providence. 

Quite  valuable  for  1775,   1776,  and  1777. 
The  best   of   them  have  been   printed  in 
Edward  Field's  Esek  Hopkins. 
Jones,  John    Paul.      Manuscripts,  in  the  Divi- 


Bibliography  483 


sion  of  Manuscripts,  Library  of  Congress. 
Have  be'en  excellently  catalogued  by  C.  H. 
Lincoln  in  Calendar"  of  John  Paul  Jones 
Manuscripts. 

An  important  original  source  for  the  naval 
history  of  the  Revolution.  A  number  of 
the  most  important  manuscripts,  how 
ever,  have  been  published,  notably  in 
Sands's  Life  and  Correspondence  of  John 
Paul  Jones. 

Marine  Committee  Letter  Book.  Letters  of 
the  Marine  Committee  and  the  Board  of  Ad 
miralty,  in  the  Division  of  Manuscripts,  Li 
brary  of  Congress. 

Quite    the    most    important    manuscript 
source  for  the  history  of  the  Continental 
navy  from   1776  to    1780.      Contains  217 
pages,  folio,  and  505  letters.       They  are 
copies  of  the  originals.      Of  these  letters, 
371  were  written  by  the  Marine  Committee 
between  August    22,  1776,  and  November 
20,   1779;    and   134  by  the  Board  of  Ad 
miralty  between   December  10,  1779,  and 
September   19,    1780.       Eighty-six  letters 
are  addressed  to  the  Navy  Board  at  Bos 
ton.    Hitherto  the  Marine  Committee  Let 
ter  Book  has  been  little  used. 
Tucker,  Samuel.      Papers,  in  the  Harvard  Li 
brary,  Cambridge.      Valuable  for  the  career 
of  Samuel  Tucker,  a  captain  in  the  Continent 
al  navy.      The  best  of  the  papers  have  been 
published  by  J.  H.  Sheppard  in   his   Life   of 
Samuel    Tucker,   1868.       (See    entry    under 
Sheppard.) 

Miscellaneous  Manuscripts,  Division  of  Manu 
scripts,  Library  of  Congress 

Of  noteworthy  importance  is  a  list  of 
commissioned  officers  in  the  Continental 
navy,  far  more  complete  than  any  yet 
published. 


484  Bibliography 


PRINTED  SOURCES    . 

Adams,  John.  Works,  10  vols.  Boston, 
1856. 

Almost  the  only  source  for  the  debates  in 
Congress   on   naval   affairs   in   the   fall   of 
1775.      His    Notes   on    Debates   are   more 
reliable  than  his  Autobiography. 
Appleton.      Cyclopedia     of     American     Biog 
raphy.      7  vols.      New  York,   1898-1900. 
Contains  a  little  information   of  interest 
to  students  of  naval  history. 
Annual  Register  for  1775-1783.      London. 

Of  slight  value  for  naval  history. 
Bancroft,     George.      History    of    the     United 
States.      6  vols      New  York,  1884-85. 

A  few  references  to  naval  history. 
Barney,  Mary.      Memoirs  of  Commodore  Josh 
ua  Barney.      Boston,  1832. 

Not  satisfactory. 

Beatson,  Robert.  Naval  and  Military  Mem 
oirs  of  Great  Britain,  1727-1783.  London, 
1804. 

Contains  accounts  of  some  of  the  import 
ant  naval  engagements  of  the  Revolu 
tion. 

Bigelow,  John.  Works  of  Benjamin  Frank 
lin.  10  vols.  New  York,  1887-88. 

Contains    valuable    original    material    for 
Franklin's  naval  services  in  Paris. 
Bolton,  C.  K.      Private    Soldier    under    Wash 
ington,      New  York,  1902. 

A  few  references  to  the  navy. 
Boston  Gazette  for  1775-1783.      Boston. 

Of  great  value  for  a  history  of  the  move 
ments  of  the  Continental  vessels.  In  its 
advertisements  of  libeled  prizes,  one  of 
the  very  best  sources  for  the  work  of  the 
Massachusetts  privateers. 

British  Marine  Encyclopedia,  in  Hogg's  Naval 
Magazine  for  1801.  London. 


Bibliography  485 


Excellent  for  definitions  of  naval  terms 
used  in  the  British  navy. 

Buell,  A.  C.  Paul  Jones,  Founder  of  the 
American  Navy.  2  vols.  New  York,  1900. 
Very  interesting;  attractive  style.  Con 
tains  many  inaccuracies.  Chapter  II, 
Volume  I,  entitled,  Founding  of  the  Ameri 
can  Navy,  is  in  no  small  part  fiction. 

Canadian  Archives,  report  on,  for  1895.  Ot 
tawa. 

Under  the  subject  Prince  Edward  Island, 
will  be  found  references  to  Broughton  and 
Selman's  expedition  in  1775. 

Carson,  H.  L.  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  Philadelphia,  1902. 

Contains  a  brief  account  of  the  prize 
courts  of  the  Revolution. 

Caulkins,  Frances  M.  History  of  New  Lond 
on,  Connecticut.  New  London,  1852. 

A  few  valuable  references  to  the  Continen 
tal  navy. 

Clark,  Thomas.  Naval  History  of  the  United 
States.  Philadelphia,  1814. 

The  earliest  history  of  the  United  States 
navy.  Has  considerable  merit.  Gives 
sources  of  his  information.  His  inter 
views  with  naval  officers  constitute  origi 
nal  material. 

Clowes,  W.  L.  Royal  Navy.  7  vols.  Bos 
ton  and  London,  1897-1903. 

Chapter  XXXI,  Volume  III,  and  Chapter  I, 
Volume  IV,  are  important  sources  for  the 
engagements  of  Continental  vessels  with 
vessels  of  the  Royal  Navy.  Scientific 
treatment.  Some  sources  have  been  used 
which  are  not  accessible  in  America.  The 
most  important  contribution  to  the  his 
tory  of  the  Continental  navy  since  Coop 
er's  naval  history,  written  in  1839. 

Connecticut  Colonial  Records  for  1775—1776; 
Connecticut  State  Records  for  1776-1780. 
Hartford,  1890,  1894-95. 


486  Bibliography 


Contain  references  to  the  Continental 
vessels  built  in  Connecticut. 

Connecticut  Gazette  for  1775-1783.  New 
London. 

Contains  important  bits  of  information 
relating  to  the  movements  of  the  Conti 
nental  vessels. 

Connecticut  Historical  Society  Collections, 
vol.  VIII.  Hartford,  1901. 

Contains  rolls  of  the  Connecticut  compa 
nies  who  served  in  the  navy  on  Lake 
Champlain. 

Continental  Congress,  Journals  of,  for  1775- 
1788.  13  vols.  Philadelphia,  1777-88. 
The  most  valuable  and  extensive  source 
for  the  history  of  naval  legislation  and  ad 
ministration  "during  the  Revolution.  The 
edition  of  W.  C.  Ford,  now  being  pub 
lished  by  the  Library  of  Congress,  super 
sedes  previous  editions. 

Continental  Congress,  Secret  Journals,  for 
1775-1788.  4  vols.  Boston,  1821. 

Contributes  some  information  on  the  work 
of  naval  agents  abroad. 

Continental  Journal  and  Weekly  Advertiser 
for  1776-1783.  Boston. 

Supplements  the  information  found  in  the 
Boston  Gazette. 

Cooper,  James  Fenimore.  History  of  the  Navy 
of  the  United  States  of  America.  London, 
1839. 

Several  editions  of  this  work  have  been 
issued.  The  first  part  treats  of  the  Con 
tinental  navy.  This  varies  little  in  the  dif 
ferent  editions.  Clear  and  interesting 
style.  The  most  satisfactory  account  of 
the  engagements  of  the  Continental  navy. 
Treats  of  its  fights  with  merchantmen  and 
privateers,  as  well  as  with  the  vessels  of 
the  Royal  Navy.  More  complete  than 
Clowes,  but  not  "so  scientific. 


Bibliography  487 


Deane  Papers.  Collections  of  the  New  York 
Historical  Society.  5  vols.  New  York, 
1886-90. 

Valuable  for  the  naval  services  of  Silas 
Deane  in  France. 

Emmons,  Lieutenant  G.  F.  Navy  of  the 
United  States.  Washington,  1853. 

Names  of  the  Continental  vessels  and 
their  prizes  arranged  in  tables.  Treat 
ment  statistical.  Valuable,  but  far  from 
complete.  Privateers  of  the  Revolution 
similarly  treated. 

Field,  Edward.  Esek  Hopkins.  Providence, 
1898. 

Valuable.  Prints  many  important  Hop 
kins  papers. 

Field,  Edward.  State  of  Rhode  Island  and 
Providence  Plantations.  3  vols.  Boston 
and  Syracuse. 

Contains  some  additional  information  re 
lating  to  the  early  life  of  Esek  Hopkins. 
Force,  Peter.      American     Archives.  *£     vols. 
Folio.      Washington,  1837-53. 

A  source  of  very  great  vajia^ioj>naval 
tory  during  1775  and  \lp&?'  Printa-~tfie 
chief  public  records  iofthese  yea^js,  to 
gether  with  important  letters  and  mis 
cellaneous  papers. 

Ford,  W.  C.      Writings  of  George  Washington. 
14  vols.      New  York  and  London,  1889-93. 
One  of  the  chief  sources  for  the  history  of 
Washington's  fleets. 

Ford,  W.  C.  Letters  of  William  Lee.  3  vols. 
Brooklyn,  1891. 

Valuable  for  the  work  of  the  commercial 
agents  in  France. 

Goldsborough's  Naval  Chronicle.  Washing 
ton,  1824. 

Griffin,  M.  I.  J.      Commodore  John  Barry. 
Philadelphia,  1903. 

Especially  valuable  for  the  numerous  doc 
uments  which  are  printed. 


488  Bibliography 


Hale,  Edward  Everett  and  Edward  Everett,  jr. 
Franklin  in  France.      2  vols.      Boston,  1887. 
Prints    many    documents.      Chapter    XI, 
American  Prisoners,  Chapter  XVI,  Priva 
teers    form    Dunkirk,  and  Chapter  XVII, 
Captain  Landais,  Volume  I,  are  of  special 
interest  to  students  of  naval  history. 
Hamersly,  L.  R.      Naval  Encyclopedia.    Phila 
delphia,  1881. 
Suggestive. 

Hamilton,  J.  C.  Works  of  Alexander  Hamil 
ton.  7  vols.  New  York,  1850-51. 

Contains     Hamilton's     views     on     single- 
headed  executives. 

Hatch,  L.  C.  Administration  of  the  Ameri 
can  Revolutionary  Army,  Harvard  Histori 
cal  Studies,  X.  New  York  and  London, 
1904. 

Suggestive  for  the  Continental  navy. 
Independent  Chronicle  and  Universal  Adver 
tiser  for  1775-1783,  Boston. 

Supplements  the  Boston  Gazette. 
Ingraham,  E.  D.      Papers     relating     to     Silas 
Deane.      Philadelphia,  1855-57. 

Relate  to  his  controversy  with  Congress. 
Jameson,  J.  F.      Essays  in  the  Constitutional 
History  of  the   United   States.      Baltimore, 
1886. 

Chapter  I  gives  a  good  account  of  the  Con 
tinental  prize  courts.     Chapter  II  treats  of 
the   administrative   organs   of   the   Conti 
nental  Congress.      Scientific. 
Johnston's  Correspondence  and  Public  Papers 
of  John  Jay.      4  vols.      New  York,  1890-93. 
Volume    I    contains    a    valuable  letter  of 
Jay's  relating  to  naval  administration. 
Jones,  C.  H.      Gustavus     Conyngham.      Phila 
delphia,  1903. 

A  brief,  but  good  account. 
King's    Regulations    and    Admiralty    Instruc 
tions  for  1772.      London. 


Bibliography  489 


Gives  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the 
Royal  Navy  at  the  opening  of  the  Revolu 
tion. 

Lincoln,  C.  H.  Calendar,  John  Paul  Jones 
Manuscripts  Washington,  1903. 

Excellent  catalogue  and  digest  of  the 
Jones  manuscripts  in  the  Library  of  Con 
gress.  Dr.  Lincoln's  purpose  is  to  enlarge 
his  calendar  so  as  to  include  the  additional 
Jones  material  which  is  found  in  the  Rec 
ords  and  Papers  of  the  Continental  Con 
gress. 

Lossing,  B.  J.  Field-Book  of  the  American 
Revolution.  2  vols.  New  York,  1851-52. 

Slight  naval  information. 

Maclay,  E.  S.  History  of  the  United  States 
Navy.  2  vols.  New  York,  1894. 

Narrative  of  the  Continental  navy  some 
what  popular. 

Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections. 
Boston,  1806-  . 

Brief  references  to  the  Continental  navy. 
New  England  Historical  and  Genealogical  Reg 
ister  for  1865.      Boston. 

Contains  a  list  of  prisoners  confined  at 
Mill  prison,  Plymouth,  during  the  Revo 
lution. 

New  Hampshire  Gazette  for  1775-1783.  Ports 
mouth. 

Contains  information  concerning  the  Con 
tinental  vessels  which  were  built  in  New 
Hampshire,  or  which  arrived  at  Ports 
mouth. 

New  London  County  Historical  Society,  Rec 
ords  and  Papers.  Volume  I.  New  London, 
1890-94. 

Gives  a  most  excellent  account  of  the 
fight  between  the  Continental  frigate 
"Trumbull"  and  the  Liverpool  privateer 
"Watt." 

Outlook,  January  3,  1903.  Tragedy  of  the 
Lost  Commission  by  James  Barnes. 


490  B  ibliograph  v 


A  brief,  but  excellent,  account  of  the  ex 
ploits  of  Captain  Gustavus  Conyngham. 
Pennsylvania     Archives,     1st     Ser.      12     vols. 
Philadelphia,  1852-56. 

Of  special  value  for  the  movements  of  the 
Continental  vessels  in  the  Delaware  river 
and  bay. 

Pennsylvania  Packet  for  1775-1783.  Phila 
delphia. 

Valuable  for  the  movements  of  the  Conti 
nental  vessels  and  the  Pennsylvania 
privateers.  The  prizes  which  were  sent 
into  Philadelphia  are  advertised  in  its  col 
umns. 

Providence  Gazette  for  1775-1783.  Provi 
dence. 

Valuable  for  Continental  vessels  in   1775 
and  1776.      Contains  names  of  prizes. 
Rhode  Island  Historical  Society  Publications, 
VIII.     Providence,  1900.    Papers  of  William 
Vernon  and  the  Navy  Board. 

A  valuable  source  of  information  for  the 
work  of  the  Navy  Board  at  Boston.  A 
number  of  important  letters  and  docu 
ments  are  printed. 

Root,  M.  P.  Chapter  Sketches  of  Connecti 
cut  Daughters  of  the  American  Revolution. 
New  Haven,  1901. 

Contains  the  best  account  of  the  life  of 
Nathaniel  Shaw,  jr.,  naval  agent  at  New 
London. 

Royal  Navy,  List  of.      New  York,   1782. 
Sands,  R.      Life  and  Correspondence  of  John 
Paul  Jones.      New  York,  1830. 

Valuable  reprints. 

Scribner's  Magazine  for  1898.  New  York. 
John  Paul  Jones  in  the  American  Revolution, 
by  Captain  A.  T.  Mahan. 

Contains  a  technical  account  of  the  fight 
between  the  "Bon  Homme  Richard"  and 
the  "Serapis." 


Bibliography  491 


Sheppard,  J.  H.  Commodore  Samuel  Tucker. 
Boston,  1868. 

A    good    account    of    Tucker's    life.      Re 
prints    the    best    of    the    Tucker    papers 
found  in  the  Harvard  Library. 
Sherburne,  J.  H.      Life    of    John    Paul    Jones. 
New  York,  1825,   1851. 

A  fair  account. 

Sparks,  Jared.  American  Biography,  2nd  Ser. 
Vol.  IX.  Gammell's  Life  of  Samuel  Ward. 
Boston,  1846. 

Contains  a  bit  of  important  information 
with  reference  to  the  founding  of  the  navy. 
Sparks,  Jared.      Gouverneur    Morris.      3    vols. 
Boston,  1832. 

Volume  I  contains  Morris's  description  of 
an  ideal  secretary  of  the  navy. 
Spears,  J.  R.      History  of  Our  Navy.      5  vols. 
New  York,  1897-99. 

The  account  of  the  Continental  navy  is 
somewhat  popular. 

Staples,  W.  R.  Annals  of  Providence.  Prov 
idence,  1843. 

Of  some  value  for  1775  and  1776. 
Stevens's  Facsimiles.      24  portfolios.      London, 
1889-95. 

Valuable  for  the  diplomatic  relations  be 
tween  England  and  France  for  1776  and 
1777,  and  for  the  movements  of  American 
vessels  in  European  waters  during  these 
years. 

Sumner,  W.  G.  Financier  and  Finances  of  the 
American  Revolution.  2  vols.  New  York, 
1891. 

Gives  a  few  facts  about  Morris's  career  as 
Agent  of  Marine. 

Town,  Ithiel.  Some  Details  of  the  American 
Revolution.  New  York,  1835. 

Of  slight  value  for  naval  history. 
Waite,  H.  E.      Origin  of  the  American  Navy. 
Boston,  1890. 


492  Bibliography 


Contains  letters  written  by  John  Adams, 
Elbridge    Gerry,    and    John    Langton    in 
1813.      These  relate  chiefly  to  the  services 
of  Washington's  fleet  at  Boston. 
Wells,  W.  V.      Life    and     Public     Services    of 
Samuel  Adams.      3  vols.      Boston,  1865. 
Adds  to  our  knowledge  of  Samuel  Adams 
as  member  of  the  Marine  Committee. 
Wharton,  Francis.     Revolutionary  Diplomatic 
Correspondence,    1775-1783.    6  vols.    Wash 
ington,  1889. 

Of  primary  importance  for  the  history  of 
the  naval  services  of  American  represent 
atives  in  foreign  countries. 

Williams,  Gomer.  Liverpool  Privateers.  Liv 
erpool,  1897. 

Valuable  for  the  sea  fights  of  the  Liver 
pool  privateers. 

Winsor,  Justin.  Narrative  and  Critical  His 
tory  of  the  United  States.  8  vols.  Boston 
and  New  York,  1884-89  . 

Volume  VI  contains  a  history  of  the  Revo 
lutionary  navy  by  E.  E.  Hale. 
Brief  and  suggestive. 


THE  STATE  NAVIES 

THE  NAVY  OF  MASSACHUSETTS 

Amory's    James    Sullivan.      2    vols.      Boston 
Io59. 

Throws  some  light  upon   Massachusetts^ 
prize  courts. 

Au,SoSl'SonElbridge     Gerry-      2    vols-      Boston, 


. 

Contains   information  in  respect  to  prize 
courts. 
Boston  Gazette  for  1775-1783.      Boston 

the  highest  value  for  the  cruises  en 
gagements,  and  prizes  of  the  Massachus 
etts  navy. 

Clowes.  W.  L.      Royal    Navy.      7    vols.      Bos 
ton  and  London,  1897-1903. 

Volume  IV  contains  an  account  of  the  na- 
yal  battle  at  the  mouth  of  the  Penobscot 
Continental    Journal    and    Weekly    Advertiser 
for  1775-1783.      Boston. 

Supplements  the  Boston  Gazette 
5°  vols  and  Resolves  of  Massachusetts. 

Volume  V  contains  the  legislation  of  Mas 
sachusetts  with  reference  to  prize  courts 
1  he  notes  to  the  laws  are  a  valuable  guide 
to  the  sources  of  the  events  which  led  to 
the  passage  of  the  laws. 

Maclay,  E    S.      History  of  American  Privateer 
ing.      New  York,  1899. 

Of  value  for  the  Revolutionary  privat<  ers 
ot  Massachusetts. 


494  Bibliography 


Massachusetts    Historical    Society   Collections. 
67  vols.      Boston,  1792-1894. 

Contains  references  to  the  Penobscot  ex 
pedition. 

Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Proceedings. 
30  vols.      Boston,  1859-94. 

Contains  information  upon  the  Penobscot 
expedition. 

Massachusetts,  Journals  of  the  House  of  Rep 
resentatives  for  1775-1783. 

Contemporaneous  print.  Incomplete. 
The  journals  found  in  the  state  library 
may  be  supplemented  by  those  found  in 
the  library  of  the  Boston  Athenaeum. 

Massachusetts,    Records    of    the    Council    for 
1775-1776. 

Are  printed  in  part  in  Force's  American 
Archives. 

Massachusetts,  Journals  of  the  Third  Provin 
cial  Convention,  1775. 

Are  printed  in  Force's  American  Arch 
ives.  The  chief  sources  for  the  early  civil 
history  of  the  Massachusetts  navy  are 
the  Journals  of  the  Third  Provincial  Con 
vention,  Journals  of  the  House,  Records 
of  the  Council,  and  the  Resolves  of  the 
General  Court. 

Massachusetts,  Records  of  the  General  Court 
for  1775-1783.  MSS. 

Supplements  the  Journals  and  the  Re 
solves. 

Massachusetts  Resolves,  for  1775-1783. 

Contemporaneous  print.  A  most  valu 
able  source.  Most  of  the  naval  legisla 
tion  of  Massachusetts  was  passed  in  the 
form  of  Resolves,  and  not  Laws. 

Massachusetts  Revolutionary  Archives,  MSS. 
A  very  extensive  and  valuable  source- 
Many  volumes  contain  material  relating 
to  the  navy.  Volumes  XXXIX,  XL,  and 
XLI V  have  the  greatest  value.  They  con 
tain  the  rolls  of  naval  vessels,  letters  of  of- 


B  iblio  graph  \  495 


ficers,  and  miscellaneous  papers.  Vol 
ume  CXLV  has  many  documents  relating 
to  the  Penobscot  expedition.  The  Arch 
ives  are  rich  in  material  relating  to  pri 
vateers.  The  Board  of  War  Letters, 
Board  of  War  Minutes,  and  Board  of  War 
Orders  contain  much  naval  material.  An 
Index  compiled  by  Justin  Winsor  affords 
a  valuable  key  to  the  Archives. 

Pickering    and    Upham's    Timothy    Pickering. 
4    vols.      Boston,    1867,    1874. 
Of  value  for  the  work  of  the  Massachu 
setts  prize  courts. 

Virginia    Gazette   for    1779.      Williamsburg. 
Prints  a  valuable  letter  about    Massachu 
setts  privateers. 

Weymouth  Historical  Society  Publications. 
2  vols.  Boston,  1881-85. 

Volume  I  gives  the  best  account  of  the 
Penobscot  expedition,  and  prints  the 
original  Journal  of  General  Solomon  Lovell 
kept  on  the  expedition. 

Winsor,  Justin.  Narrative  and  Critical  His 
tory  of  the  United  States.  8  vols.  Boston 
and  New  York,  1884-89. 

Article  on  the  Revolutionary  navy  by 
E.  E.  Hale,  in  Volume  VI,  contains  infor 
mation  on  the  Massachusetts  navy.  Val 
uable  bibliography. 

Works  of  John  Adams.  10  vols.  Boston, 
1856. 

Gives  John  Adams's  opinion  of  the  Massa 
chusetts  statute  establishing  privateer 
ing. 

THE  NAVY  OF  CONNECTICUT 

Caulkins,  Frances  M.  History  of  Norwich. 
Norwich,  1845. 

Contains  information  relative  to  the  naval 
part  which  Norwich  and  Norwich  men 
played  in  the  Revolution. 


496  Bibliography 


Connecticut  Revolutionary  Archives.  MSS. 
Contains  much  miscellaneous  informa 
tion  relating  to  the  Connecticut  navy. 
Volumes  VIII  and  IX  contain  valuable  ma 
terial  concerning  the  prizes  captured  by 
Connecticut  vessels. 

Connecticut   Colonial   Records  for    1775-1776. 
Hartford,   1890. 

Valuable  for  the  beginnings  of  the  Con 
necticut  navy. 

Connecticut  Gazette  for  1775-1779.      New  Lon 
don. 

The  best  newspaper  for  naval  news  in  the 
state.  Captured  prizes  are  advertised 
in  its  columns. 

Connecticut     Historical     Society     Collections. 
8  vols.      Hartford,  1860-1901. 

Volume  II  contains  a  description  of 
Bushnell's  submarine  boat. 

Connecticut     in     the     Revolution.      Hartford, 
1889. 

Of  slight  naval  value. 

Connecticut     Journal     for      1775-1779.      New 
Haven. 

Supplements  the  Connecticut  Gazette  in  a 
few  particulars,  but  contains  much  less 
news. 

Connecticut     State     Records,     1776-1779.      2 
vols.      Hartford,  1894-95. 

Of  great  value  for  the  years  covered. 

Force,     Peter.      American    Archives.      9    vols. 
Folio.      Washington,  1837-53. 

Contains  miscellaneous  information  relat 
ing  to  the  Connecticut  navy. 

Ford,  W.  C.      Writings  of  George  Washington. 
14  vols.      New  York  and  London,   1889-93. 
Volume  X  contains  Washington's  account 
of  Bushnell's  submarine  boat. 

Hartford  Courant  for  1775-1779.  Hartford. 
For  naval  news,  the  newrspaper  in  the  state 
next  in  importance  to  the  Connecticut 
Gazette. 


Bibliography  497 


New  London  County  Historical  Society.  Rec 
ords  and  Papers.  Volume  I.  New  Lon 
don,  1890-94. 

Valuable.  Contains  a  fair  account  of  the 
Connecticut  navy,  and  a  list  of  Connecti 
cut  privateers. 

Wharton,  Francis.  Revolutionarv  Diplomat 
ic  Correspondence.  G  vols.  Washington, 
1889. 

Volume  II  has  a  reference  to  the  voyage 
of  the  "Spy"  to  France  in  1778. 

THE  NAVY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 

Almon's  Remembrancer  for  1778.      London. 
Valuable  for  an  account  of  the  British  raid 
to  the  north  of  Philadelphia  in  May,  1778. 
Bioren,  Laws  of  Pennsvlvania.      4  vols.      Phil 
adelphia,  1810. 

Contains  statutes  relating  to  the  estab 
lishment  of  prize  courts. 

Barney,  Mary.  Memoirs  of  Commodore  Bar 
ney.  Boston,  1832. 

Of  value  for  a  history  of  the  "Hvder 
Ally." 

Jameson,  J.  F.  Essays  in  the  Constitutional 
History  of  the  United  States.  Baltimore, 
1886. 

Chapter  I,  Predecessor  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  gives  an  excellent  account  of  the 
capture  of  the  sloop  "Active"  by  the  brig 
"Convention." 

Pennsylvania  Archives.  1st  and  2nd  Ser.  31 
vols.  Philadelphia  and  Harrisburg,  1852- 
90. 

The  most  important  source  after  the  Co 
lonial  records.  Volume  I  of  the  second 
series  contains  the  minutes  of  the  Penn 
sylvania  Navy  Board,  a  brief  historical 
account  of  the*  navy,  and  a  list  of  Pennsyl 
vania  privateers. 


498  Bibliography 


Pennsylvania   Colonial   Records.      16  vols. 
Philadelphia,   1852-53. 

A  source  of  great  value  for  the  history  of 
the  Pennsylvania  navy. 

Pennsylvania  Journal  and  Weekly  Advertiser 
for  1775-1783.     Philadelphia. 

Supplements  the  Pennsylvania  Packet. 
Pennsylvania    Packet   for    1775-1783.      Phila 
delphia. 

Valuable  for  the  prizes  captured  by  Penn 
sylvania  naval  vessels  and  by  privateers. 
Not  printed  while  the  British  occupied 
Philadelphia. 

Scharf    and    Westcott.      History    of    Pennsyl 
vania.      3  vols.      Philadelphia,  1884. 

Contains   bits   of   naval  information. 
Wallace,    J.    W.      Colonel    William    Bradford. 
Philadelphia,  1884. 

Valuable  for  the  naval  campaigns  around 
Philadelphia. 

THE  NAVY  OF  VIRGINIA 

Almon's    Remembrancer   for    1779    and    1781. 
London. 

Contains  original  material  for  the  raids  into 
Virginia  of  Matthews  and  Collier,  and  of 
Arnold  and  Phillips. 

Calendar  of   Virginia   State   Papers.      10  vols. 
Richmond,   1875-92. 

Volumes  I-III  throw  light  upon  the  years 
1780-1783.  Volume  VIII,  pages  75-240, 
prints  the  Journals  of  the  Committee  of 
Safety  of  Virginia,  February  7  to  July  5, 
1776. 

Force,    Peter.      American    Archives.      9    vols 
Folio.      Washington,   1837-53. 

Prints  important  state  records. 
Ford,  W.  C.      Writings  of  Jefferson.      10  vols. 
New  York  and  London,  1892-99. 

Of  value  for  Jefferson's  naval  services 
while  governor  of  Virginia. 


Bibliography  499 


Hening's  Statutes  of  Virginia.      13  vols.    Phil 
adelphia  and  New  York,  1823. 

A  most  important  source  for  naval  legis 
lation   and  administration   in   Virginia. 
Lull,  E.  P.      History  of  the  United  States  Navy 
yard    at    Gosport,     Virginia.      Washington, 
1874. 

Gives  the  early  history  of  the  navy  yard 
at  Norfolk. 

Maryland     Archives,       21     vols.       Baltimore, 
1883-1901. 

Contains   information   about    Commodore 
Boucher  of  the  Virginia  navy. 
North   Carolina    Records.      18  vols.      Raleigh, 
1886-1900. 

Contains  information  upon  the  raid  of 
Matthews  and  Collier. 

Rowland,  K.  M.      George  Mason.      2  vols.  New 
York,  1892. 

Volume  I  is  valuable  for  Virginia's  "Po 
tomac  river  fleet." 

Southern  Literary  Messenger  for  1857.      Rich 
mond. 

Contains  a  series  of  valuable  articles  en 
titled  the  "Virginia  Navy  of  the  Revolu 
tion."     A   good   account   of   the   Virginia 
navy.      Somewhat    extravagant    in    tone. 
Popular  rather  than  scientific. 
Virginia    Archives,    Richmond.      Letter    Book 
of  Governor  Thomas  Jefferson;  Letter  Book 
of  Governor  Benjamin  Harrison.     MSS. 

Contain   bits   of   naval   information. 
Virginia     Archives,     Richmond.     Journals    of 
the    Virginia    Navy    Board.      MSS. 

A  valuable  source  for  both  the  civil  and 
military  history  of  the  navy. 
Virginia  Archives,  Richmond.      Virginia  State 
Navy  Papers.      2  vols.      MSS. 

An  important  original  source.  Contains 
much  information  relative  to  the  differ 
ent  vessels  of  the  navy. 


500  Bibliography 


Virginia    Gazette    for     1775-1779.      Williams- 
burg. 

Not  complete  files.  Those  in  the  Library 
of  the  Virginia  Historical  Society  may  be 
supplemented  by  those  in  the  Virginia 
State  Library.  Of  some  value  for  the 
cruises  of  the  Virginia  fleet. 

Virginia    Historical    Register.      6   vols.      Rich 
mond,   1848-53. 

Contains  some  important  bits  of  naval  in 
formation. 

THE  NAVY  OF  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

Almon's  Remembrancer  for  1780.      London. 
Valuable  for  the  naval  defence  of  Charles 
ton,  1779-1780. 

Clowes,    W.    L.      Royal   Navy.      7  vols.      Bos 
ton  and  London,  1897-1903. 

Gives  good  accounts  of  the  cruise  of  the 
"Randolph"  in  1778,  and  the  capture  of 
the  "South  Carolina"  in  1782. 
Connecticut  Gazette  for  1782,  New  London. 
Reports  the  capture  of  the  Bahamas  by 
the  Spaniards  and  Commodore  Gillon. 
Cooper's  Statutes  of  South  Carolina.      10  vols. 
Columbia,  1836-41. 

Valuable  for  naval  legislation. 
Deane  Papers.      Collections  of  the  New  York 
Historical     Societv.      5     vols.      New     York, 
1886-90. 

Serviceable  for  Gillon 's  movements  in 
Europe. 

Drayton,    W.    H.      Memoirs   of   the   American 
Revolution.      2    vols.      Charleston,     1821. 

Throws  light  on  the  naval  history  of  1775. 
Force,     Peter.      American    Archives.      9    vols. 
Folio.      Washington,    1837-53. 

Prints  important  South  Carolina  official 
records,  notably  the  early  journals  of  the 
South  Carolina  Navy  Board.  The  manu- 


Bibliography  501 


script  journals  of  the  South  Carolina  Navy 
Board"  are  in  the  New  York  State  Library 
at   Albany. 
Gazette  of  State  of  South  Carolina  for  1776- 

1779.  Charleston. 

Files  for  part  of  the  period  at  Charleston. 
Valuable  for  the  cruises  of  the  naval  ves 
sels. 

Gibbes,  R.  W.  Documentary  History  of  the 
American  Revolution.  3  vols.  New  York, 
1853-57. 

Contains  some  naval  information. 
McCrady,  Edward,  History  of   South  Carolina 
in  the  Revolution.      2  vols.      New  York  and 
London,  1901-02. 

Of  value  for  1775  and  for  a  history  of  the 
"South  Carolina." 

Moultrie,  William.  Memoirs  of  the  American 
Revolution.  2  vols.  New  York,  1802. 

Of  little  value  for  naval  history. 
Poore's    Constitutions.      Washington,    1877. 
Contains  the  constitution  of  South  Caro 
lina  of  1776. 

Pennsylvania  Packet  for  1782.  Philadelphia. 
Contains  valuable  material  for  the  move 
ments  of  the  "South  Carolina"  during 
1782. 

Ramsay,  David.  Revolution  of  South  Caro 
lina,  Trenton,  1785. 

Of  slight  value  for  naval  history. 
South  Carolina  and  American  General  Gazette 
for  1776-1779.      Charleston. 

Files  for  part  of  the  period  at  Charleston. 
Valuable  for  the  cruises  of  the  naval  ves 
sels. 

South  Carolina  Archives,  Columbia.  Journals 
of  General  Assembly  for  1776.  MSS. 

Of  value  for  the  civil  history  of  the  navy. 

South  Carolina  Archives,  Columbia.      Journals 

of  the   House  of   Representatives  for  1779- 

1780.  MSS. 


502  Bibliography 


Throws  light  upon  the  naval  history  for 
1779-1780. 

South  Carolina  Archives,  Columbia.  Journals 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  for  1783. 
MSS. 

Valuable  for  the  naval  services  of  Commo 
dore  Gillon. 

South  Carolina  Archives,  Columbia.  Miscel 
laneous  Records  A.  MSS. 

Contains   some  important  naval  records. 
South  Carolina  Historical  Society  Collections. 
3  vols.      Charleston,   1857-59. 

Reprints  a  part  of  the  J  ournals  of  the  South 
Carolina  Committee  of  Safety. 
South    Carolina    Historical    and    Genealogical 
Magazine.      2  vols.      Charleston,  1900-01. 
•  Prints  two  important  letters  of  Commo 
dore  Gillon. 

Wharton,    Francis.    Revolutionary  Diplomatic 

Correspondence.     6  vols.  Washington,  1889. 

Contains  a  note  upon  Commodore  Gillon. 

THE  MINOR    NAVIES   OF   THE  SOUTHERN 
STATES 

Force,  Peter.  American  Archives.  9  vols. 
Folio.  Washington,  1837-53. 

Prints  official  records.  Of  considerable 
value  for  the  navies  of  Maryland,  North 
Carolina,  and  Georgia. 

Georgia  Historical  Society  Collections.  5  vols. 
Savannah,  1840-1902. 

Prints  a   part  of  the   proceedings  of  the 
Georgia    Council    of    Safety.      Contains    a 
few  naval  items  of  importance. 
Jones,  C.  C.,  jr.      History  of  Georgia.      2  vols. 
Boston,  1883. 

Contains  a  few  references  to  the  work  of 
the  Georgia  galleys. 

Maryland    Archives.      21    vols.      Baltimore, 
1883-1901. 


Bibliography  503 


Contains  much  information  concerning  the 
Maryland  navy.  This  may  be  found  by 
consulting  the  index  for  the  names  of  the 
vessels. 

Maryland  Statutes.      Kilty,  2  vols.      Annapo 
lis,   1799-1800. 

Kilty  is  best.      Hanson  supplements  Kilty. 
McCall,   Hugh.      History  of  Georgia.      2   vols. 
Savannah,   1811-16. 

Volume  II  gives  some  information  in  re 
spect  to  the  Georgia  galleys. 
North   Carolina    Records.      18  vols.      Raleigh, 
1886-1900. 

The  most  valuable  source  for  the  history 
of  the  North  Carolina  navy. 
Ridgely,  David.      Annals  of  Annapolis.      Balti 
more,    1841. 

Narrates  an  important  event  or  two  in  the 
history  of  the  Marvland  navy. 
Scharf,  J.  "T.      History  "of  Maryland.      3  vols. 
Baltimore,  1879. 

Volume  II  contains  naval  information  of 
considerable  value. 

Southern  Literary  Messenger  for  1857.      Rich 
mond. 

Contains  an  excellent  account  of  the  Bat 
tle  of  the  Barges. 

THE  MINOR  NAVIES   OF   THE  NORTHERN 
STATES 

Arnold,  Samuel  G.      History  of  Rhode  Island, 
2  vols.      New  York,    1859. 

Volume  II  contains  a  few  items  of  naval 
information. 

Carson,  H.   L.      Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.      Philadelphia,  1902. 

Contains  references  to  the  admiralty  legis 
lation  of  New  York. 

Connecticut  Gazette  for  1779.  New  London. 
Gives  a  good  account  of  the  achievements 
of  Captain  Talbot. 


504  Bibliography 


Fernow's  New  York  in  the  Revolution.      Al 
bany,  1887. 

Contains  the  rolls  of  several  New  York 
vessels. 

Force,     Peter.      American    Archives.      9    vols. 
Folio.      Washington,   1837-53. 

Prints  important    records    for  Rhode    Is 
land,  New  Hampshire,  and  New  York. 
New     Hampshire     Archives.      MSS.    Concord. 

References  to  the  "Hampden." 
New  Jersey,   Minutes  of  the   Provincial  Con 
gress    and    Council    of    Safety,     1775-1776. 
Trenton,   1879. 

Of  some  value  for  the  prize  legislation  in 
New  Jersey. 

New  York,  Journals  of  New  York  Provincial 
Convention,  etc.      2  vols.      Albany,  1842. 
Valuable  for  the  history  of  the  New  York 
navy. 

Providence    Gazette    for    1775-1779.      Provi 
dence. 

Valuable  for  the  movements  and  prizes 
of  Rhode  Island  vessels. 

Pennsylvania  Packet  for  1779.  Philadelphia. 
Contains  original  material  for  the  cruises 
of  Captain  Talbot. 

Poore's    Constitutions.      Washington,    1877. 
Contains  the  constitution  of  New  York  for 
1777. 

Rhode    Island,    Acts   and   Resolves  for    1775- 
1783. 

Contemporaneous  prints.  A  valuable 
source  for  the  history  of  the  Rhode  Island 
navy. 

Rhode     Island     Colonial     Records.      10     vols. 
Providence,  1856-65. 

Supplements  the  information  contained  in 
the  Acts  and  Resolves. 

Rhode   Island   Historical  Collections.      8  vols. 
Providence,  1827-92.  _ 

Contains  letters  which  are  valuable  for  the 
naval  historv  of  1775. 


Bib,  io  graph  v  505 


Rhode  Island  Historical  Society  Publications 
VIII.      Providence,   1900. 

Important  for  the  naval  history  of  Rhode 
Island  for  1778. 

Rhode    Island.      Journals    of    the    Council    of 
War.      MSS.      Providence. 

Of  some  value  for  the  years  1779—1781. 
Staples,  W.  *R.      Annals  of  Providence.      Prov 
idence,    1843. 

Contains  a    brief    account    of    the    Rhode 
Island  navy. 

Sheffield,  W.  P.*    Rhode  Island  Privateers  and 
Privateersmen.      Newport,  1883. 
A  fairly  good  account. 


APPENDIX  B 

A  LIST  OF  COMMISSIONED  OFFICERS  WHO 
SERVED  IN  THE  NAVY  AND  MARINE 
CORPS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  DUR 
ING  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION1 


NAVY 

COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF 

1.      Esek  Hopkins. 

CAPTAINS 

1.  Joseph  Nicholson. 

2.  John  Manly. 

3.  Hector  McNeil. 

4.  Dudley  Saltonstall. 

5.  Nicholas  Biddle. 


1.  This  list  is  compiled  from  two  lists  of  naval  officers 
which  are  now  found  in  the  Division  of  Manuscripts  of 
the  Library  of  Congress.  One  of  these  was  prepared  by 
the  Naval  Department  in  1781,  the  other  by  the  Auditor's 
Office  of  the  Treasury  Department  in  1794.  A  complete 
roster  of  the  naval  officers  of  the  Revolution  does  not 
exist.  The  list  now  printed  is  almost  complete.  It  may 
contain  a  few  inaccuracies.  The  names  are  arranged 
alphabetically,  with  the  exception  of  those  of  the  first 
twenty-four  naval  captains,  which  are  arranged  according 
to  rank. 


List  of  Officers                   507 

6. 

Thomas  Thompson. 

7. 

John  Barry. 

8. 

Thomas  Read. 

9. 

Thomas  Grennel. 

10. 

Charles  Alexander. 

11. 

Lambert  Wickes. 

12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 

Abraham  Whipple. 
John  B.  Hopkins. 
John   Hodge. 
William   Hallock. 

16. 

Hoysted   Hacker. 

17. 

Isaiah  Robinson. 

18. 

John  Paul  Jones. 

19. 

James   Josiah. 

20. 

Elisha    Hinman. 

21. 

Joseph   Olney. 

22. 

James   Robinson. 

23. 

John  Young. 

24. 

Elisha  Warner. 

25. 

John  Ayres. 

26. 

Peter  Brewster. 

27. 

William  Burke. 

28. 

vSamuel  Chew. 

29. 

Gustavus  Conyngham. 

30. 

Benjamin  Dunn. 

31. 

John  Green. 

32. 

Seth  Harding. 

33. 

John  Hazard. 

34. 

Henry  Johnson. 

35. 

Peter  Landais. 

36. 

John  Nicholson. 

37. 

Samuel  Nicholson. 

38. 

William  Pickles. 

39. 

John  P.  Rathburn. 

40. 

Thomas  Simpson. 

41. 

John  Skimmer. 

42. 

William  Stone 

43. 

Silas  Talbot. 

44. 

Samuel  Tucker 

45. 

Daniel  Waters, 

508  List  of  Officers 


LIEUTENANTS 

1.  Robert  Adamson. 

2.  Joseph  Adams. 

3.  Thomas  Albertson. 

4.  Blaney  Allison. 

5.  John  Angus. 

6.  James  Armitage. 

7.  Rhodes  Arnold. 

8.  Josiali  Audibert. 

9.  John  Baldwin. 

10.  William  Barnes. 

11.  Joshua  Barney. 

12.  Benjamin  Barren. 

13.  William  Barren. 

14.  Benjamin  Bates. 

15.  George  Batson. 

16.  Daniel  Bears. 

17.  John  Bellenger. 

18.  Elijah  Bowen. 

19.  Christopher  Bradley. 

20.  Jacob  Brooks. 

21.  John  Brown. 

22.  Philip  Brown. 

23.  Isaac  Buck. 

24.  Charles  Bulkley. 

25.  Edward  Burke. 

26.  Ezekiel  Burroughs. 

27.  Samuel  Cardal. 

28.  George  Champlin. 

29.  John  Channing. 

30.  Seth  Clarke. 

31.  David  Cullam. 

32.  Richard  Dale. 

33.  James  Degge. 

34.  "William  Dennis. 

35.  Peter  Deville. 

36.  Silas  Devpl. 

37.  Arthur  Dillaway. 

38.  Joseph  Doble. 

39.  Marie  Sevel  Dorie. 


List  of  Officers                   509 

40. 

William  Dunlap. 

41. 

William  Dupar. 

42. 
43. 

John  Fanning. 
Joshua  Fanning. 

44. 

Wilford  Fisher. 

45. 

Patrick  Fletcher. 

46. 

Robert  French. 

47. 

William  Gamble. 

48. 

Nicholas  E.  Gardner. 

49. 

Joseph  Greenway. 

50. 
51. 

Stephen  Gregory. 
William  Grinnell. 

52. 

James  Grinwell. 

53. 

Simon  Gross. 

54. 

Elijah  Hall. 

55. 

William  Ham. 

56. 

Benjamin  Handy. 

57. 

58. 

James  Handy. 
Robert  Harris. 

59. 

Abraham  Hawkins. 

60. 

61. 

John  Hennesey. 
Stephen  Hill. 

62. 
63. 

Christopher  Hopkins. 
Esek  Hopkins,  jr. 

64. 

William  Hopkins. 

65. 

George  House. 

66. 

Robert  Hume. 

67. 
68. 

Aquilla  Johns. 
John  Kemp. 

69. 

John  Kerr. 

70. 

Michael  Knies. 

71. 

Benjamin  Knight. 

72. 

William  Leeds. 

73. 

Edward  Leger. 

74. 

John  Lewis. 

75. 
76. 

Muscoe  Livingston. 
George  Lovie. 

77. 

Cutting  Lunt. 

78. 

Henry  Lunt. 

79. 
80. 

John  McDougal. 
John  Mclvers. 

List  of  Officers 


81.  Jonathan  Maltbie. 

82.  John  Margisson. 

83.  Robert  Martin. 

84.  Richard  Marvin. 

85.  Luke  Mathewman. 

86.  William  Mollison. 

87.  John  Moran. 

88.  William  Moran. 

89.  William  Morrison. 

90.  Alexander  Murray. 

91.  Isaac  Olney. 

92.  Benjamin  Page. 

93.  David  Phipps. 

94.  James  Pine. 

95.  Jonathan  Pitcher. 

96.  Robert  Pomeroy. 

97.  David  Porter. 

98.  William  Potts. 

99.  Jonathan  Pritchard. 

100.  Benjamin  Reed. 

101.  Peter  Richards. 

102.  John  Rodez. 

103.  James  Robertson. 

104.  John  Robinson. 

105.  Peter  Rosseau. 

106.  Robert  Saunders. 

107.  John  Scott. 

108.  Robert  Scott. 

109.  John  Scranton. 

110.  Nicholas  Scull. 

111.  Benjamin  Seabury. 

112.  James  Sellers. 

113.  Josiah  Shackford. 

114.  Peter  Shores. 

115.  John  Sleymaker. 

116.  Daniel  Starr. 

117.  James  Stephens. 

118.  John  Stevens. 

119.  Adam  W.  Thaxter. 

120.  Mathew  Tibbs. 

121.  Daniel  Vaughan. 


List  of  Officers                  511 

122. 

Thomas  Vaughan. 

123. 
124. 

Joseph  Vesey. 
Thomas  Weaver. 

125. 

David  Welch. 

126. 

Hezekiah  Welch. 

127. 

128. 
129. 
130. 

John  Wheelwright. 
Jacob  White. 
Jacob  White  (?). 
Richard  Wickes. 

131. 

James  Wilson. 

132. 

Robert  Wilson. 

133. 

Hopley  Yeaton 

134. 

Samuel  York. 

MARINE  CORPS 


MAJOR 

1.  Samuel  Nichols. 

CAPTAINS 

1.  Edward  Arrowsmith. 

2.  Seth  Baxter. 

3.  Abraham  Boyce. 

4.  Isaac  Craig. 

5.  Benjamin  Dean. 

6.  James  Disney. 

7.  John  Elliott. 

8.  Robert  Elliott. 

9.  Joseph  Hardy. 

10.  John  Hazard. 

11.  William  Holton. 

12.  William  Jones. 

13.  Dennis  Leary. 

14.  William  Mathewman. 

15.  William  Morris. 

16.  Robert  Mullen. 

17.  William  Nicholson. 

18.  George  Jerry  Osborn. 

19.  Richard  Palmes. 

20.  Matthew  Parke. 

21.  Miles  Pennington. 

22.  Andrew  Porter. 
23. Rice. 

24.  Gilbert  Saltonstall. 

25.  Samuel  Shaw. 

26-  Joseph  Shoemaker 


List  of  Officers  513 

27. Spence. 

28.  John  Stewart. 

29.  John  Trevitt. 

30.  Elihu  Trowbridge. 

31.  John  Welch. 

LIEUTENANTS 

1.  William  Barney. 

2.  William  Barney  (?). 

3.  Henry  Becker. 

4.  Pete/ Bedford. 

5.  David  Bill. 

6.  Gurdon  Bill. 

7.  Abraham  Boyce. 

8.  Peregrine  Brown. 

9.  Benjamin  Catlin. 
10.  Seth  Chapin. 


ohn  Chilton. 
ames  Clark, 
ames  Cokely. 
ames  Connolly. 
William  Cooper. 


11. 

12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 

16.  David  Cullam. 

17.  Robert  Cummings. 

18.  Henry  Dayton. 

19.  Robert  Davis. 

20.  Panatier  De  la  Falconier. 

21.  Lewis  De  la  Valette. 

22.  John  Dimsdell. 

23.  Stephen  Earl. 

24.  Thomas  Elting. 

25.  Thomas  Elwood. 

26.  Zebadiah  Farnham. 

27.  William  Fielding. 

28.  Thomas  Fitzgerald. 

29.  John  Fitzpatrick. 

30.  Samuel  Gamage. 

31.  William  Gilmore. 

32.  Peter  Green. 

33.  John  Guignace. 

34.  Roger  Haddock. 


List  of  Officers 


35. 

James  Hamilton 

36. 

Jonas  Hamilton. 

37. 

William  Hamilton. 

38. 

John  Harris. 

39. 

John  Harris  (  ?). 

40. 

Richard  Harrison. 

41. 

Samuel  Hempsted. 

42. 

Daniel  Henderson. 

43. 

Samuel  Holt. 

44. 

Benjamin  Huddle. 

45. 

William  Huddle. 

46. 

Robert  Hunter. 

47. 

William  Jennison. 

48. 

Kelly. 

49. 

Hugh  Kirkpatrick. 

50. 

Daniel  Longstreet. 

51. 

David  Love. 

52. 

Eugene  McCarthy. 

53. 

James  McClure. 

54. 

Richard  McClure. 

55. 

Charles  McHarron. 

56. 

Robert  McNeal. 

57. 

Peter  Manifold. 

58. 

Stephen  Meade. 

59. 

Jonathan  Mix. 

60. 

Hugh  Montgomery. 

61. 

Abel  Morgan. 

62. 

William  Morris. 

63. 

Alexander  Neilson. 

64. 

Avery  Parker. 

65. 

Samuel  Powars. 

66. 

Thomas  Pownal. 

67. 

Samuel  Prichard. 

68. 

Thomas  Plunkett. 

69. 

William  Radford. 

70. 

Franklin  Reed. 

71. 

Jerry  Reed. 

72. 

Nathaniel  Richards. 

73. 

Alpheus  Rice. 

74. 
75. 

Jabez  Smith. 
Walter  Spooner. 

List  of  Officers                   515 

76. 

Edmund  Stack. 

77. 

Daniel  Starr. 

78. 

J.  M.  Strobach. 

79. 

Benjamin  Thompson. 

80. 

George  Trumbull. 

81. 

Thomas  Turner. 

82. 

Nathaniel  Twing. 

83. 

Abraham  Vandyke. 

84. 

Zebulon  Varnam. 

85. 

Wadsworth. 

86. 

Samuel  Wallingsworth. 

87. 
88. 
89. 

James  Warren. 
James  Warren  (?). 
William  Waterman. 

90. 

Jacob  White. 

91. 

James  H.  Wilson. 

92. 

Jonathan  Woodworth. 

APPENDIX  C 


A  LIST  OF  ARMED  VESSELS  IN  THE  SERV 
ICE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  DURING 
THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION1 


PRINCIPAL    FLEET    OF    THE    CONTINEN 
TAL    CONGRESS 


No.  of 

Period  of 

Rig. 

Name. 

guns. 

Service. 

.     1   ship 

Alfred 

24 

1775-1778 

^2  ship 

Columbus 

20 

1775-1778 

X3  brig 

Andrew  Doria 

14 

1775-1777 

4  brig 

Cabot 

14 

1775-1777 

5  sloop 

Providence 

14 

1775-1779 

6  sloop 

Hornet 

10 

1775-1777 

7  schooner 

Wasp 

8 

1775-1777 

8  schooner 

Fly 

8 

1775-1777 

9  brig 

Lexington 

16 

1776-1777 

10  brig 

Reprisal 

16 

1776-1777 

11   brig 

Hampden 

14 

1776-1777 

12  sloop 

Independence 

10 

1776-1778 

13  sloop 

Sachem 

10 

1776-1777 

14  sloop 

Mosquito 

4 

1776-1777 

15  frigate 

Raleigh 

32 

1777-1778 

16  frigate 

Hancock 

32 

1777 

17  frigate 

Warren 

32 

1777-1779 

1.  The  term  "Period  of  Service"  is  used  in  a  somewhat 
general  sense.  The  dates  are  close  approximations. 
Among  the  vessels  used  by  the  Naval  Department  as 
packets,  merchantmen,  or  scout-ships  are  the  following: 
"Despatch,"  "Georgia  Packet,"  "Phoenix,"  "Mercury," 
"Baltimore,"  "Enterprise,"  and  "Fame." 


Lift 

of   Armed    I 

7esscJs             517 

18  frigate 

Washington 

32 

1777-1778 

19  frigate 

Randolph 

32 

1777-1778 

20  frigate 

Providence 

28 

1777-1780 

21  frigate 

Trumbull 

28 

1777-1781 

22  frigate 

Congress 

28 

1777 

23  frigate 

Virginia 

28 

1777-1778 

24  frigate 

Effingham 

28 

1777-1778 

25  frigate 

Boston 

24 

1777-1780 

26  frigate 

Montgomery 

24 

1777 

27  frigate 

Delaware 

24 

1777 

28  ship 

Ranger 

18 

1777-1780 

29  brigantine 

Resistance 

10 

1777-1778 

30  sloop 

Surprise 

1777 

31   frigate 

Alliance 

32 

1778-1785 

32  ship 

General  Gates 

18 

1778-1779 

33  brigantine 

Retaliation 

1778 

34  galley 

Pigot 

"~8 

1778 

35  frigate 

Confederacy 

32 

1779-1781 

36  sloop 

Argo 

12 

1779 

37  brig 

Diligent 

12 

1779 

38  ship 

Saratoga 

18 

1780-1781 

39  ship  of  the 

line  America 

74 

1782 

40  ship 

Washington 

20 

1782-1784 

41   ship 

Due  de  Lauzun 

20 

1782-1783 

42  frigate 

Bourbon 

36 

1783 

FLEET  FITTED  OUT  IN  FRANCE 


1   ship 

Bon  Homme 

R.ichard            42 

1779 

2  ship 

Indian                   40 

1777 

3  frigate 

Deane  or  Hague32 

1777-1783 

4  frigate 

Queen  ofFrance  28 

1777-1780 

5  ship 

Pallas                     30 

1779 

6  ship 

Ariel                       20 

1780-1781 

7  cutter 

Cerf                        18 

1779 

8  cutter 

Revenge                14 

1777-1779 

9  brig 

Vengeance            12 

1779 

10  cutter 

Dolphin                  10 

1777 

1  1   lugger 

Surprise                 10 

1777 

518 


List    of   Armed    Vessels 


POLLOCK  S   FLEET 


1  ship 

2  sloop 

3  schooner 


Morris 
West  Florida 


24 


1778-1779 
1779-1780 
1779 


WASHINGTON  S  FLEET 

1  schooner     Hannah  ....  1775 

2  schooner     Lynch  ....  1775-1776 

3  schooner     Franklin  ....  1775-1776 

4  schooner     Lee  4  1775-1776 

5  schooner      Harrison  ....  1775-1776 

6  schooner     Warren  ....  1775-1776 

7  brigantine  Washington         10  1775-1776 

8  schooner     Hancock  ....  1776 

9  sloop  Gen'l  Schuyler    ....  1776 

10  sloop  Gen'l  Mifflin        ....  1776 

11  galley  Lady  Washington  1776-1777 

ARNOLD'S  FLEET1 


1  sloop 

Enterprise 

12 

1776 

2  schooner 

Royal  Savage 

12 

1776 

3   schooner 

Revenge 

8 

1776 

4  schooner 

Liberty 

8 

1776 

5  gondola 

New  Haven 

3 

1776 

6  gondola 

Providence 

3 

1776 

7  gondola 

Boston 

3 

1776 

8  gondola 

Spitfire 

3 

1776 

9  gondola 

Philadelphia 

3 

1776 

10  gondola 

Connecticut 

3 

1776 

11   gondola 

Jersey 

3 

1776 

12   gondola 

New  York 

3 

1776 

13  galley 

Lee 

6 

1776 

14  galley 

Trumbull 

8 

1776 

15  galley 

Congress 

8 

1776 

16   galley 

Washington 

8 

1776 

17    galley 

Gates 

8 

1776 

1.     Several  of  Arnold's  vessels  were  employed  on  the 
Lakes  in  1775. 


INDEX 


ABACO,  Island  of,  58. 

Abercrombie,  Lieutenant-Colonel,  414. 

"Accomac,"  the,  406,  411. 

Accounts,  Naval,  settling  of,  70,  196,  225,  227- 
228,  246-247.  303-304,  440. 

"Active,"  the,  335  and  note,  349,  352. 

Adams,  John,  early  naval  services,  32,  36-41, 
46,  48,  51,  82-83,  86,  97,  98  and  note,  135; 
in  France,  161,  254-255,  257,  276,  292;  and 
Massachusetts  naval  affairs,  321,  324. 

Adams,  Samuel,  naval  services,  83,  86,  89  and 
note;  administrative  views,  186,  211,  215, 
225;  and  Penobscot  expedition,  349. 

"Admiral  Duff,"  the,  345. 

"Admiral  Keppel,"  the,  369. 

Admiralty  Courts,  of  Continental  Congress, 
48-49,  67-68,  203,  233,  478;  of  Massachus 
etts,  68,  148,  322-323,  327-328:  of  Connecti 
cut,  365,  474;  of  Pennsylvania,  148,  391- 
392;  in  France,  266-267,  282-283;  of  Vir 
ginia,  403-405;  of  South  Carolina,  423-424; 
of  Maryland,  444,  474;  of  North  Carolina, 
459;  of  Georgia,  462;  of  Rhode  Island,  467- 
468,  474;  of  New  York,  476;  of  New  Hamp 
shire,  476-477;  of  New  Jersey,  477-478. 

"Adventure,"  the  brig,  397,  406. 

"Adventure,"  the  schooner,  397. 

Africa,  173,  176,  279-280. 

Agent  of  Marine,  appointment  of,  218-226; 
office  of,  226-228;  legislation  under,  228- 
235;  movement  of  fleet  under,  235-240; 
recommendations  of,  240-244;  last  work  of, 
244-250;  257,  302,  394. 


520  Index 

"Albany,"  the,  350. 

Alexander,  Charles,  123. 

"Alfred,"  the,  52,  55,  57,  59,  97,  133,  158,  175, 

281. 
"Alliance,"  the,   122,  204,  206,  220,  231,  235, 

236-238,  248-250,  295-300,  302. 
"Amelia,"  the,  442. 
"America,"  the,   111,   122,   145,  204,  219-220, 

235,  247. 

"American  Congress,"  the,  398. 
"American  Turtle,"  the,  364. 
Amsterdam,  264,  311,  436-437. 
"Andrew  Doria,"  the,  52,  57,  59. 
Annapolis,  442,  446. 
"Annapolis,"  the,  442. 
Antigua,  306-307,  344. 
Appeals  in  prize  cases,   49,   68,   327,   365-366, 

391,  404-405,  475,  477. 
Appointments,  in  Continental  navy,  52-55,  105- 

107,    108-109,   119,    124-125,   160,  257-260, 

309. 

"Ariadne,"  the,  408. 
"Ariel,"  the,  300. 
"Argo,"  the,  469-470. 
Arnold,  Benedict,  73-78,  414,  415,  446. 
"Arnold,"  the,  376,  379,  385. 
Arnold    and    Phillips,    raid    of,    408,    413-415, 

446. 

Arnold's  fleet,  71-78,  475. 
Articles  of  Confederation,    197,  200-202,  417, 

434-435. 

"Atalanta,"  the,  206. 
"Augusta,"  the,  385. 
"Aurora,"  the,  468. 
Aylett,  William,  405. 
Azores,  the,  368. 

BAGADUCE,  Maine,  348-351. 
Bahamas,  the,  58,  328,  438. 
"Bailie,"  the,  236. 

Baltimore,  51,   56,  57,  93,  99,   102,   168,  249, 
331,  442,  443,  475. 


521 


"Baltimore,"  the,  442. 

Baltimore  Committee  of  Observation,  93,  442. 

Barbadoes,  the,  176,  431. 

Barclay,  Thomas,  302-303. 

Barney,  Joshua,  248-249,  394. 

Barnwell,  John,  418,  459. 

Barron,  James,  397,  402,  407,  416. 

Barren,  Richard,  397,  407. 

Barry,  John,  109  note,  206,  236-238,  802. 

Bartlett,  Josiah,  86. 

"Batchelor,"  the,  169. 

Battle  of  the 'Barges,  449-451. 

Beaufort,  S.  C.,  423,  428. 

"Beaufort,"  the,  428. 

Belfast,  293. 

"Bellona,"  the,  459. 

Bergen,  304. 

"Berkenbosch,"  the,  273. 

Bermudas,  the,  156,  167,  171,  173,  180,  206, 
236,  328,  342,  457,  465. 

"  Betsey,"  the,  419. 

Beverly,  Mass.,  63. 

Bilbao,  256,  331. 

Biddle,  Nicholas,  54,  57,  120,  123,  430 

Biddle,  Owen,  373. 

Bingham,  William,  266,  305-306. 

"Bishop  Landaff,"  the,  471-472. 

Blackburn,  John,  454. 

"Black  Duck,"  the,  389. 
Black  Prince,"  the  privateer,  260-261. 

"Black  Prince,"  the  ship,  52. 

"Black  Princess,"  the,  260-261. 

Blake,  Edward,  420,  425. 

Bland,  Theodoric,  222,  223. 

Blewer,  Joseph,  382. 

"Blonde,"  the,  350. 

Board  of  Admiralty,  appointment,  181-188: 
duties,  188-189;  pay,  189-190;  selection, 
190-194;  legislative  work,  194-203;  move 
ment  of  fleet  under,  203-208;  discontinu 
ance,  208-209,  219-222,  227-229. 


522  Index 

Board  of  Treasury,  Continental,  184,  188,  205, 

247,  249,  250. 

Board  of  War,  Continental,  184,  187. 
Board   of    War,    Massachusetts,   329-332,   335- 

337,  343,  345,  348,  351. 
"Bolton,"  the,  59. 
"Bon    Homme    Richard,"  the,  163,  258,  295- 

298. 

Bordeaux,  256,  276,  292,  436. 
Bordentown,  97,  99,  102,  387. 
Boston,  63,  93,  94,  113,  114,  139,  140,  148, 

154,  168,  172,  203,  206,  247,  248,  328,  352, 

353,  361. 
"Boston,"   the,    91,    158,   204,   207,   292,   344, 

390,  433,  434. 
Boston  Bay,  156. 
Boucher,  John  Henry,  402,  444. 
Boulogne,  262. 
Bounties,  46,  128,  146,  198,  403,  410,  411,  432, 

443. 

"Bourbon,"  the,  92,  122,  204,  235,  240. 
Bowen,  Oliver,  459,  460,  461. 
Boys,  Captain,  395. 

Braddock,  Captain,  of  Georgia  navy,  461. 
Bradford,  John,  69,  94,  95. 
Bradford,  William,  382,  387. 
Brest,  256. 

"Bricole,"  the,  433,  434. 
"Britannia,"  the,  357. 
British  fleet  on  Lake  Champlain,  76. 
Brooke,  Walter,  402. 
Broughton,  Nicholson,  33,  61-63,  66. 
Brown,  John,  227,  231. 
Bryan,  George,  190. 
"Bulloch,"  the,  461. 
Burden,  George,  293. 
Burgoyne,  General,  77,  384. 
Bushnell,  David,  363-364. 
Buzzard's  Bay,  339. 

"CABOT,"  the,  52,  57,  58,  59,  158,  175. 
,  261. 


Cadrigal,  General,  438. 

Caldwell,  Thomas,  378. 

Calvert,  Captain,  308. 

Canada,  72,  151,  173. 

"Camden,"  the,  475. 

"Camilla,"  the,  350. 

Campbell,  Captain,  461. 

Campbell,  Lord  William,  419-420. 

Cape  Cod,  279. 

Cape  Fear,  156,  165,  452. 

Cape  Francois,  207,  237,  305,  331,  460. 

Captures,  Continental,  legislation  concerning, 

49-50,      126-127,     200-201,     232-234.      See 

Prizes. 

Carleton,  Sir  Guy,  76,  77. 
Carmichael,  William,  260. 
Castine,  Maine,  348. 
Caswell,  Governor,  458. 
"Caswell,"  the,  406,  456,  458,  459. 
Catherine  II.  of  Russia,  274. 
Champlain,  Lake,  72-78,  475. 
Champlin,  George,  165. 
"Chance,"  the,  169. 
Charleston,  S.  C.,  154,  156,  166,  167,  369,  419- 

423,  425,  427,  432-434. 
Chase,  Samuel,  51,  82,  86. 
Chatham,  Conn.,  92,  204. 
"Chatham,"  the,  390. 
Chaumont,  Ray  de,  296. 
"Cherokee,"  the,  419,  420. 
"Chester,"  the,  442,  444. 
Chew,  Samuel,  165. 

Chickahominy  shipyard,   400,   401,   413,   414. 
Clinton,  General  Henry,  408,  445. 
Clouston,  John,  332,  343. 
Cochran,  Robert,  421-422,  427. 
Coit,  William,  359,  368  note. 
Collier,  Sir  George,  350. 
"Columbus,"  the,  52,  57,  59,  133,  175. 
"Comet,"  the  galley,  461. 
"Comet,"  the  schooner,  421. 


524  Indc.v 

"Commerce,"  the,  419. 

Commerce,  American,  241. 

Commercial  agents  of  Congress,  105,  253,  256- 

257,  305-311. 
Commercial  Committee  of  Congress,  160,  162, 

257,  307. 

Commissary-General  of  Issues,  204. 
Commissary-General  of  Prisoners,  96,  116,  209, 

222. 

Commissary-General  of  Purchases,  116. 

Commissioners  at  Paris,  105,  116,  254;  work 
of,  255-294. 

Commissions  for  Continental  Navy,  50,  109, 
188,  197,  199-200,  258;  for  privateers,  127, 
200,  260-261,  321;  for  Massachusetts  navy, 
201;  for  Pennsylvania  navy,  374. 

Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs,  160,  162,  255, 
277-280. 

Committee  of  Secret  Correspondence,  162,  255, 

258,  260,  276,  283,  305. 
"Confederacy,"   the,    112,    122,    204,    207-208, 

306,  390. 

"Confederate,"  the,  208. 
"Congress,"  the  frigate,  92. 
"Congress,"  the  galley,  461. 
Connecticut  Council,  354,  355,  366. 
Connecticut  Council  of  Safety,  75,  95,  354-363, 

369,  371. 

Connecticut  Gazette,  359,  362. 
Connecticut  General  Assembly,  354,  355,  358, 

360,  361,  363-367,  371-372. 
Connecticut,  Governor  of,  75,  92,  95,  354-364, 

369,  371. 
Connecticut    House    of    Representatives,    354, 

366. 

Connecticut  Journal,  362. 
Connecticut  Navy,  315;  beginning  of,  355-360; 

administration  of,  360-363;  regulations  of, 

361,  366-367;    vessels,    355-360,    367-370; 
end  of,  369-370. 

Connecticut,  warfare  of  armed  boats,  370-372. 


Index  525 

"Conqueror,"  the,  442,  444. 

Consular  bureau,  139-140. 

Continental  agents,  95,  103,  105,  257,  305,  307. 

Continental  Congress,  movement  for  a  navy  in, 
34-38,  81-84;  legislation  respecting  navy, 
37-38,  41-51,  84-85,  105-107,  109,  119-133, 
145-146,  154,  196-203,  228-235,  245-250, 
259,  261-263;  legislation  respecting  Naval 
Department,  37-38,  86-88,  93-94,  96-98, 
101-103,  109,  113,  187-193,  195-196,  208- 
209,  216-224,  301-304;  prepares  a  fleet  on 
Lakes,  71-73;  and  prize  courts,  48-50, 
67-69,  203,  327,  365,  391,  404,  467,  477- 
478;  action  respecting  Esek  Hopkins,  133- 
138;  action  respecting  consuls,  140;  ignor 
ance  of  navy,  182-183;  establishes  admin 
istrative  boards,  184,  212;  factions  of,  186; 
210-216;  refuses  to  increase  navy,  240-244; 
ends  navy,  245;  relations  with  6  liver  Pol 
lock,  307-311;  315,  322,  333,  357,  385,  392, 
402,  405,  409,  412,  417,  418,  421,  437,  438, 
443,  447,  460,  465,  469,  472,  473,  475. 

Continental  Navy,  movements  for  a,  32-42, 
80-85;  executive  organs  of,  38-41,  60  86- 
90,  93-103,  187-196,  216-218,  223-228,  252- 
257,302-307;  rules  of,  43-48;  legislation  re 
specting,  42-51,  85-86,  121-133,  196-201, 
228-230,  232-234;  vessels  of,  51-52,  90-93, 
110-112,  114,  121-123,  156-158,  203-205, 
219-220,  235,  247-249,  261-266,  281  306 
315,  344,  349,  388,  394,  433,  434,  465,  469- 
470;  officers  of,  51-55,  105-110,  117,  123- 
126,  128-129,  133-139,  158-160,  165,  258- 
260;  expeditions  of,  55-60,  168-169,  171- 
173,  205-208,  236-239,  283-284,  286-300, 
302,  308-311;  uniform  of,  117-118;  condi 
tions  of,  141-160;  general  movements  of 
161-180,  276-280;  recommendations  for 
increase  of,  239-243;  end  of,  244-251; 
breaches  of  neutrality  by,  273-274,  284- 
292;  375,  427,  444,  447. 


526  Index 

Contraband,  200,  232. 

"Convention,"  the,  377,  385,  388,  389. 

Conyngham,  Gustavus,  173,  179,  258,  260, 
268,  273,  287,  290. 

Cook,  Captain  James,  258,  275  note. 

Cook,  George,  444,  449. 

Cooke,  Nicholas,  463,  465. 

"Cormorant,"  the,  244,  415-416. 

Cornwallis,  surrender  of,  239,  240. 

Coromandel  Coast,  170,  279. 

Coruna,  256,  438. 

Cottineau,  Captain,  297. 

Coulthard,  Captain,  206. 

"Countess  of  Scarborough,"  the,  164,  296-297. 

Courts-martial  and  courts  of  inquiry,  in  Conti 
nental  navy,  44-45,  109,  131-139,  198-199, 
228-232,  298-299,  300;  in  Connecticut 
navy,  366;  in  Pennsylvania  navy,  375, 
386-387. 

Court  of  appeals  for  trial  of  prize  cases,  203. 

Crane,  Stephen,  84. 

"Crane,"  the,  360,  369. 

Crawford,  John,  231. 

Cregier,  Thomas,  472. 

Cropper,  John,  450. 

Cross,  Stephen,  336. 

Cushing,  Nathan,  323. 

Cushing,  Thomas,  328 

DALE,  Richard,  258. 

Dalton,  John,  398. 

Danish  government,  304. 

Dartmouth,  Mass.,  325,  339. 

Davidson,  Samuel,  378-379. 

Davis,  Caleb,  337,  338. 

Davis,  James,  453-454. 

Dawson,  George,  238. 

Deane,  Silas,   37,    38,    51-52,    54,    82,    86,    148, 

154;  in  France,  254,  258-260,  266,  276-278, 

282,  292. 
"Deane,"  the,    171,   203,  220,   231,   232,   235, 

236,  262,  263,    306,  344,  352,  390. 


Indc.v  527 

"Defence,"  the  barge,  448. 
"Defence,"  the  schooner,  420,  421. 
"Defence,"  the  ship,  of  the  Connecticut  navy, 

359,  368,  369,  370. 
"Defence,"  the  ship,  of  the   Maryland  navy, 

441,  442,  449. 
"Defence,"  the  sloop,  339. 
Delaware,  315. 
"Delaware,"  the  frigate,  93. 
"Delaware,"  the  schooner,  377,  385. 
Deshon,  John,  98,  99,  113,  196,  355,  357. 
D'Estaing,     Count,  116,  139,  167.  - 
Devil's  Island,  449. 
Dewey,  Admiral,  179. 
"Diamond,"  the,  468. 
"Dickinson,"  the,  386,  387. 
"Diligence,"  the,  406,  411. 
"Diligent,"  the  brig,  349. 
"Diligent,"  the  schooner,  320. 
"Dolphin,"  the  cutter,  262,  281,  287,  289. 
"Dolphin,"  the  schooner,  442,  444. 
Douglass,  William,  72. 
Dover,  England,  262. 
"Dragon,"  the,  406,  411. 
"Drake,"  the,  164,  293. 
Drayton,  William  Henry,  421. 
Duane,  James,  223. 

"Due  de  Lauzun,"  the,  235,  237,  248,  303. 
Dunkirk,  256,  260,  287,  290,  437. 
Dunmore,  Lord,  56,  396,  453. 
"Duras,"  the,  295. 
Dutch  government,  273. 
Dyer,  Eliphalet,  82. 

"EAGLE,"  the  British  ship,  364. 

"Eagle,"  the,  of  the  South  Carolina  navy,  430. 

Eastern   Coast,  the,   320,   338,   339,   343,   344, 

353. 

East  Haddam,  Conn.,  360. 
Edenton,  N.  C.,  93,  452,  455,  458. 
"Effingham,"  the  frigate,  92,  388. 
"Effingham,"  the  galley,  386. 


528  lndc.\- 

Ellery,  William,  90,  182,  191-194,  196,  208. 
Elliot,  Samuel,  361,  362  and  note. 
Ellis,  Richard,  458-459. 
Ellsworth,  Oliver,  222,  355. 
"Enterprise,"  the  ship,  76. 
"Enterprise,"  the  sloop,  72. 
Executive  Departments  of  Congress,  107. 
Executive  system,  defects  of,  210-214. 

FACTIONS,  in  Congress,  186,  210-216. 

"Fair  American,"  the,  430. 

"Falcon,"  the,  339. 

Falconer,  Nathaniel,  101. 

"Fame,"'  the,  306-307. 

"Fearnaught,"  the,  448. 

Ferrol,  291. 

Fisk,  John,  328,  332,  343. 

Flags,  55,  120,  275-276,  327,  377. 

Florida,  167,  173,  175,  461. 

Floyd,  William,  191. 

"Fly,"  the,  of  Continental  navy,  56,  57,   158. 

"Fly,"  the,  of  Virginia  navy,  416. 

"Flying  Fish,"  the,  451. 

Forbes,  James,  191,  192. 

Ford,  Samuel,  386. 

Foreign  Office  of  Congress,  160,  255. 

Fort  Mercer,  385. 

Fort  Mifflin,  385. 

Forton  prison,  267,  270. 

"Fowey,"  the,  396. 

"Fox,"  the,  163. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  83,  378;  in  France,  254- 

256,  261,  262,  265-274,  282-284,  295,  296, 

298-303. 

"Franklin,"  the  galley,  54,  390. 
"Franklin,"  the  schooner,  63,  64. 
"Freedom,"  the,  325,  332,  343,  352. 
French  fleet,  139,  166-167,  205,  207,  242,  247- 

248,  263,  276,  294,  344,  371,  389,  413. 
French  government,    263,    265,    273,    282-289, 

294,  295,  298. 


Index  529 

GADSDEN,  Christopher,  38,  39,  82,  83,  86. 
"Gallatea,"  the,  350. 

Galvez,  governor  of  Louisiana,  307-311. 
Gates,  General  Horatio,  74,  470; 

'General  Gates,"  the,  122,  165,  173,  306. 

'General  Greene,"  the,  390-391. 

'General  Mifflin,"  the,  70. 

'General  Monk,"  the,  393,  394. 

'General  Moultrie,"  the,  430,  431,  433,  434. 

'General  Putnam,"  the,  70,  472,  473,  474. 

'General  Schuyler,"  the,  70,  472,  473,  474. 
Genoa,  State  of,  260. 
Georgetown,  S.  C.,  422,  426,  434. 
Georgia  Committee  of  Safety,  460. 
Georgia  Navy,  315,  459-462. 
Georgia  Provincial  Congress,  459,  460. 
Gerard,  French  minister  to  United  States,  119, 

140,  161,  166. 

Germaine,  Lord  George,  457. 
Gerry,  Elbridge,  321,  323. 
Ghent,  436. 
Gibraltar,  268. 
Gillon,  Alexander,  435-440. 
Glasgow,  276,  278. 
"Glasgow,"  the,  59,  133,  186. 
"Gloucester,"  the,  265. 
Glover,  John,  62,  63. 
Goldsborough,  Robert,  447. 
"Good  Intent,"  the,  274. 
Gosport  navy-yard,  93,  400,  408. 
Goodrich,  a  Tory  privateersman,  165. 
Grannis,  John,  136. 
Grason,  Thomas,  443. 
Great  Bridge,  Va.,  396. 
Green,  John,  258,  263. 
"Greyhound,"  the,  350. 
Grimes,  John,  466. 
Griswold,  William,  356. 
Groton,  Conn.,  371. 
Guadaloupe,  331. 
Guerard,  Benjamin,  434. 


530 


lndc.\ 


"Guilford,"  the,  367,  370. 
Gwinnett,  Button,  461. 

HABERSHAM,  Joseph,  459. 

"Hague,"  the,  236,  248. 

Halifax,  156,  167,  465. 

Hall,  Captain,  430. 

Hall,  Giles,  355,  357. 

Hallet,  Allen,  345. 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  211,  213,  217-218. 

"Hampden,"  the  brig,  175. 

"Hampden,"  the  ship,  349,  476. 

Hampstead,  Joshua,  452,  453. 

Hampton,  Va.,  396,  402,  412. 

Hancock,  John,  86,  89,  353,  472. 

"Hancock,"  the  frigate,  91,  158,  239,  344. 

"Hancock,"  the  galley,  390. 

"Hancock,"  the  schooner,  63. 

Handy,  Joseph,  450. 

Handy,  Levin,  450. 

"Hannah,"  the,  a  merchantman,  475. 

"Hannah,"  the,  of  Washintgon's  fleet,  33,  61, 

62. 

Haraden,  Jonathan,  343. 
Harding,  Seth,  207,  359. 

Hardy,  Captain,  461. 

Harris,  Captain,  407. 

Harrison,  Benjamin,  413. 

Harrison,  William  Hanson,  447. 

"Harrison,"  the,  of  Virginia  navy,  416. 

"Harrison,"  the,  of  Washington's  fleet,  63,  65. 

Harrison  and  Van  Bibber,  443. 

Hartford,  Conn.,  355. 

Hartford  Courant,  362. 

Hartley,  David,  269. 

Hatcher,  Captain,  461. 

Havana,  237,  305,  309,  311,  435,  438. 

"Hawk,"  the,  59. 

Hayden,  Uriah,  359. 

"Hazard,"  the,  33-5,  342,  349,  352. 

Hazelwood,  John,  376,  380,  384,  385,  386,  388. 

Heath,  General,  116. 


Henry,  Patrick,  211. 

"Henry,"  the,  411. 

Hewes,  Joseph,  38,  41,  86,  90,  454. 

"Hibernia,"  the,  168,  169. 

Hill,  Whit  mill,  193. 

"  Hinchinbrooke,"  the,  461. 

Hispaniola,  175,  305,  457,  460. 

Hodge,  William,  262,  291. 

Holker,  John,  140,  205. 

"Holker,"  the,  391. 

Hollingsworth,  Jesse,  442. 

"Honor,"  the,  368. 

Hopkins,  Daniel,  208. 

Hopkins,  Esek,  53-60,  91,  105,  116,  125,  133- 

139,  185,  419. 

Hopkins,  J.  B.,  53,  54,  168. 
Hopkins,   Stephen,   38,   39-40,   53,   81,   82,   86, 

90,  91,  92,  119. 
Hopkinson,  Francis,  96-97. 
"Hornet,"  the  brig,  428. 
"Hornet,"  the  galley,  461. 
"Hornet,"  the  sloop,  55,  56,  57. 
Hosmer,  Titus,  203. 
Houston,  John,  86. 
Howe,  General  William,  77,  384. 
Howe,  Lord  Richard,  120. 
Howe,  Tyringham,  59. 
"Hudson,"  the,  475. 
Huntington,  Benjamin,  356,  359. 
Huntington,  Daniel,  193. 
"Hussar,"  the,  353. 
"Hyder  Ally,"  the,  394,  395. 

IMPRESSMENT  of  seamen,  146. 
"Independence,"  the  brigantine,  325,  352. 
"Independence,"  the  galley,  442. 
"Independence,"  the  sloop,  281. 
"Indian,"  the,  264,  304,  436. 
"Industry,"  the,  389. 
Ingraham,  Edward,  453. 
loor,  Joseph,  431. 
Ipswich,  Mass.,  322,  328. 


532  Index 

"Iris,"  the,  238. 
Isle  of  Pines,  431. 

"JACKALL,"  the,  236. 

Jamaica,  156,  175,  345. 

"Jane,"  the,  407. 

"Jason,"  the,  169,  171. 

Jay,  John,  185,  186,  211,  219,  261. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  303,  405,  409,  413. 

"Jefferson,"  the,  407,  411,  414. 

"Jemmy  and  Sallie,"  the,  430. 

Jenifer,  Daniel  of  St.  Thomas,  193,  221. 

Jersey,  island  of,  440. 

"John,"  the,  169. 

"John,"  the,  430. 

"Johnson,"  the,  442. 

Jones,  John  Paul,  54,  55,  106,  125,  164,  173- 
176,  179,  183,  207;  in  Europe,  258,  270- 
271,  273,  292-300,  303,  304,  449. 

Josiah,  James,  120,  123. 

Joyner,  John,  418,  435,  439,  459 

"Judith,"  the,  429. 

"KATY,"  the,  55,  464,  465. 

Kidd,  Captain,  commander  of  a  British  ves 
sel,  450. 

Kingston,  Mass.,  325. 
"King  Tammany,"  the,  452. 
Knox,  Henry,  53. 

"LADY  WASHINGTON,"  the,  71. 
Lafayette,  161,  295,  446. 
Lake  Champlain,  battle  of,  77. 
Landais,  Peter,  199,  258,  259,  294-300. 
Langdon,  John,  37,  38,  91,  95,  106. 
Langdon,  Timothy,  323. 
Laurens,  Henry,  89,  311 
Laurens,  John,  437. 
"L'Aventure,"  433. 
Lawrence,  John,  387. 
Lebanon,  Conn.,  355. 
Ledyard,  William.  371. 


Index 533 

Lee,  Arthur,  186,  211,  254,  280,  282,  300. 
Lee,  R.  H.,  38,  83,  86,  89,  93,  186,  211,  215, 

256. 

Lee,  William,  186,  211,  256. 
"Lee,"  the  galley,  461. 
"Lee,"  the  schooner,  63,  65. 
Leghorn,  277. 
Lempriere,  Clement,  419. 

Lewis,  Francis,  86,  90,  191-194,  196,  208,  475. 
"Lexington,"  the,  281,  287,  289,  291. 
"Liberty,"  the  armed  boat,  397,  415,  416,  417. 
"Liberty,"  the  brig,  397,  407. 
Lilly,  Thomas,  397. 
Little,  George,  353. 
Liverpool,  206,  278. 
"Liverpool,"  the,  384. 
Livingston,  Musco,  119. 
Livingston,  William,  119,  477-478. 
Logic,  Commander,  236. 
Long  Island,  70,  368,  370,  474. 
L'Orient,  237,  256,  286,  299,  300.  302. 
Louis  XVI.,  202,  294,  436. 
Lovell,  Solomon,  350. 
"Loyalist,"  the,  415,  416. 
Loyalists,  338,  348,  370,  448. 
Luxembourg,  Chevalier,  436,  439-440. 
Luzerne,  French  minister  to  United  States,  248 
"Lydia,"  the,  389. 
"Lynch,"  the,  63,  64. 
Lyon,  Samuel,  386. 

McCLEHANY,  William,  231. 

McDougall,  Alexander,  213,  217-218    224 

McKean,  Thomas,  222. 

Macpherson,  John,  119. 

McQueen,  John,  435. 

Machias,  Maine,  320,  339. 

"Machias  Liberty,"  the,  320. 

Madeira,  237. 

Madison,  James,  192. 

"Magnifique,"  the,  247. 

Mahan,  A.  T.,  78,  143. 


534 


Manchac,  309. 

Manly,  John,  64,  65,  123,  163,  236. 

Marblehead,  Mass.,  62,  63,  149. 

"Margaretta,"  the,  339. 

"Maria,"  the,  169. 

Marine    Committee,    appointment    of,    80-87; 

offices  of,  87;  chairmen,  88-90;  agents  of, 

90-103,   105-115;  work  of,   105-140;  condi 

tions  of  the  naval  service  under,   141-160; 

general   movements    of   its    fleet,    161-180; 

defects   of,    181-186;  superseded,    187;   69, 

70,  247,  279,  349. 
Marines,  Continental,  43  and  note,  51,  58,  117- 

118,  123,  129,  131,  136,  158-159,  197,  207, 

229-230;    of    Massachusetts,    326;    of    Con 

necticut,   357,   358;  of   Pennsylvania,   376, 

377    392;  of  Virginia,  397,  398,  410,  411; 

of  South  Carolina,  420,  422,  427,  430,  440; 

of  Maryland,  441,  445,  447;  of  North  Caro 

lina,  452. 

"Mars,"  the,  201,  273,  338,  343,  344. 
Martha's  Vineyard,  339. 
Martin,  Joshua,  457. 
Martinique,  204,  266,  305,  331,  353,  407,  443, 

457. 
Maryland  commissioners  for  defense  of  Chesa 

peake  bay,  447. 

Maryland  Committee  of  Safety,  441,  442. 
Maryland,  Governor  of,  443. 
Maryland    Governor    and    Council,    441,    445, 

446,  447,  448. 

Maryland  Legislature,  445,  447,  448,  451. 
Maryland  Navy,  122,  315,  402,  415,  441-451. 
Maryland    Provincial    Convention,    441,    442, 

443,  444. 

Mason,  George,  398. 
"Massachusetts,"  the,  325,  332,  343. 
Massachusetts   Agent   of   the    Commonwealth, 

337,  338. 

Massachusetts  admiralty    courts,  68,  69,  322- 
323,  327. 


Index 535 

Massachusetts  Board  of  War,  329-332,  335, 
336,  337,  343,  345,  348,  351. 

Massachusetts  Commissary-General,  338,  353. 

Massachusetts  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
343. 

Massachusetts  Committee  of  Safety,  319. 

"Massachusetts  Constitution,  337. 

Massachusetts  Council,  37,  319,  320,  322,  323, 
324,  341,  347,  351,  422. 

Massachusetts  General  Court,  319,  321,  323- 
326,  329,  332-336,  338,  339,  341. 

Massachusetts,  Governor  of,  337,  338,  353. 

Massachusetts  House  of  Representatives,  319, 
321,  324,  347,  351. 

Massachusetts  Navy,  151,  201,  275,  315-353, 
470;  beginnings  of,  318-328;  documents  re 
specting,  328-329,  332-333;  334-337,  345- 
347;  administration  of,  329-332,  337-338; 
regulations  respecting,  325-327,  333-3~35; 
vessels  of,  325,  331,  335-339,  341-344,  352- 
353;  expeditions  of,  332-333,  341-353;  end 
of,  353. 

Massachusetts  Provincial  Congress,  318,  319. 

Massachusetts  trading  vessels,  330-331. 

Matthews  and  Collier,  raid  of,  408. 

Mauritius,  179,  279. 

Maxwell,  James,  401,  409,  413. 

"Medea,"  the,  352. 

''Mercury,"  the,  311. 

"Merlin,"  the,  385. 

Middletown,  Conn.,  355,  359. 

Mifflin,  Samuel,  380. 

Mifflin,  Thomas,  192. 

"Mifflin,"  the,  367. 

"Milford,"  the  cartel-ship,  270. 

"Milford,"  the  frigate,  344. 

Milligan,  Captain,  461. 

Mill  prison,  267,  268,  270. 

"Minerva,"  the  merchantman,  475. 

"Minerva,"  the,  of  the  Connecticut  navv,  356, 
357,  358. 


536 Index 

Mississippi,  the,  175,  307-311,  430. 
Mobile,  expedition  against,  166,  311. 
"Molly,"  the,  122. 
"Montague,"  the,  120,  165. 
Montgomery,  General,  458. 
Montgomery,  James,  390. 
"Montgomery,"  the  frigate,  92. 
"Montgomery,"  the  ship,  71,  472-475. 
"Montgomery,"  the  sloop,  376,  379,  380,  385, 

386. 

Moore,  Lieutenant,  339. 
Moravian  mission,  274. 
Morgan,  Captain,  430 
Morris,  Gouverneur,  211,  214. 
Morris,  Robert,  86,  90,  173-176,  182  and  note, 

211;  agent  of  marine,  218-251,   256,   257, 

302,  394;  and  the  Pennsylvania  navy,  376, 

378,  394. 

Morris,  Thomas,  256. 
"Morris,"  the,  308-309. 
"Mosquito,"  the,  407. 
Moylan,  Stephen,  62,  63. 
Mud  Island,  384. 

•NANCY,"  the,  65,  236. 

Nantes,  256,  262,  266,  284,  286,  331,  369. 

Nantucket,  279,  328,  342,  465. 

Nassau,  New  Providence,  58,  173,  419. 

'Nautilus,"  the,  350. 

Naval  administration  in  the  states,  in  general, 
315-318. 

Naval  Agents,  of  Washington,  62-63,  69-70; 
of  Congress,  90-96,  103,  105-107,  110,  116, 
117,  150,  189,  195,  196,  221,  227,  247,  256- 
257,  263-264,  266,  303-311;  of  Massachus 
etts,  327,  329;  of  Connecticut,  361-363;  of 
Virginia,  401;  of  South  Carolina,  426;  of 
Maryland,  442-443;  of  North  Carolina,  458- 
459. 

Naval  Committee,  appointment  of,  35-39; 
quarters  of,  39;  description  of,  39-40;  act 
ive  life  of,  40-41;  legislative  work,  42-51; 


Index 537 

prepares  a  fleet,  51-56;  appoints  officers, 
52-55;  orders  of,  56;  summary  of  work,  60; 
its  successor,  87;  settling  of  its  accounts, 
246-247. 

Naval  Office  at  Paris,  origin  of,  252-253;  duties 
and  work,  253-254,  257-304;  personnel  of, 
254-255;  headquarters  of,  255;  agents  of, 
256-257;  movements  of  the  fleet  under, 
286-300. 

Naval  operations,  161-180. 

Naval  stations,  Continental,  154-155;  British, 
155-156. 

Navy  Board  at  Boston,  origin  of,  97-103;  du 
ties  of,  105-116,  164-165:  abolition  of,  221, 
223,  227;  145,  168,  171,  176,  178,  182,  189, 
191,  195,  196,  197,  247,  349,  469. 

Navy  Board  at  Philadelphia,  origin  of,  96-97, 
99-103;  duties  of,  105-116;  abolition  of,  221, 
223,  227;  145,  189,  195,  196,  197,  247. 

Navy  of  the  American  Revolution.  See  Con 
tinental  Navy,  Massachusetts  Navy,  Con 
necticut  Navy,  etc. 

Nesbit,  J.  M.,  95. 

Neutral  rights,  200,  253,  266,  271-274,  281- 
292. 

New  Bedford,  Mass.,  339. 

Newbern,  N.  C.,  93,  452,  453,  455,  457,  459. 

Newburyport,  Mass.,  62,  91,  320,  328,  336. 

Newfoundland,  164,  167,  169;  Grand  Banks  of, 
166,  170,  236;  fisheries  of,  180,  276,  291- 
292. 

New  Hampshire  Navy,  315,  349,  476-477. 

New  Haven,  Conn.,  73,  355,  360,  362. 

New  Jersey,  315,  477-478. 

New  Jersey  Provincial  Congress,  477. 

New  London,  Conn.,  92,  93,  95,  116,  165  196 
236,  355,  357,  359,  362,  363,  371. 

New  Orleans,  160,  307-309. 

New  Providence  Expedition,  55-60,  133. 

New  York,  city  of,  52,  69,  70,  75,  93,  154,  155, 
206,  207,  239,  247,  364,  368,  471,  473. 


538  Index' 

Newport,  R.  I.,  99,  194,  371. 

New  York  Committee  of  Safety,  70,  472,  474, 

475. 

New  York  Convention,  96. 
New  York,  Governor  of,  47G. 
New  York  Marine  Committee,  471,  472. 
New  York  Navy,  70-71,  315,  471-476. 
New   York   Provincial  Congress,   71,   72,    471, 

472. 

New  York  Secret  Committee,  475. 
Nichols,  Samuel,  58,  123. 
Nicholson,  James,     123,   124,     125  note,  206, 

238-239,  441,  444,  446,  449. 
Nicholson,  Samuel,  236,  258,  262,  263. 
Niles,  Robert,  357,  370. 
Niles,  Samuel,  356,  357. 
Nixon,  John,  52,  95,  96,  97,  376,  378. 
"Noble,"  the,  407. 
"North,"  the,  350. 

North  Carolina  Council  of  Safety,  451,  452. 
North  Carolina  Naval  Commissioners,  451-454. 
North  Carolina  Navy,  315,  451-459. 
North  Carolina  Provincial  Congress,  452,  456. 
North  Yarmouth,  Maine,  322. 
Norwich,  Conn.,  92,  355,  356,  359,  360,  372. 
"Notre  Dame,"  the,  428-431,  433,  434,  435. 

O'BRIAN,  Jeremiah,  320. 

Ocracoke  Inlet,  155,  400,  406,  452,  454-459. 

Officers,  in  Continental  navy,  45-46,  50,  109, 
123;  in  Massachusetts  navy,  333;  in  Con 
necticut  navy,  357;  in  Pennsylvania  navy, 
374;  in  Virginia  navy,  397,  401;  in  North 
Carolina  navy,  452 ;  in  Rhode  Island  navy, 
464. 

"Oliver  Cromwell,"  the,  of  the  Connecticut 
navy,  359,  368-370. 

"Oliver  Cromwell,"  the,  of  the  Virginia  navy, 
415. 

Olney,  Joseph,  168. 

Olney,  Richard,  471. 

"Orpheus,"  the,  208. 


539 

Osbornes,  Va.,  engagement  at,  414. 
Ossabaw  Island,  461. 
"Otter,"  the,  350,  449. 
"Oxford,"  the,  265. 

PACA,  William,  203,  447. 

Paine,  R.  T.,  82. 

Palfrey,  William,  302. 

"Pallas,"  the,  296. 

Palmer,  Joseph,  324. 

Parsons,  Alston  and  Company,  305. 

"Patriot,"  the  armed  boat,  397. 

"Patriot,"  the  schooner,  416. 

Pay,  in  Continental  navy,  46,  50-51,  128,  145- 
146,  198;  in  Massachusetts  navy,  325-326, 
333;  in  Connecticut  navy,  357,  361,  366- 
367;  in  Pennsylvania  navy,  380-381;  in 
Virginia  navy,  397,  403,  411,  416;  in  South 
Carolina  navy,  422,  432;  in  Maryland  navy, 
441,  443,  445;  in  North  Carolina  navy,  452. 

"Peggy,"  the,  423. 

Pendleton,  Captain,  459. 

Pennell,  Joseph,  227,  246,  247,  250. 

Pennsylvania  commissioners  for  defense  of  the 
Delaware,  393-395. 

Pennsylvania  Committee  of  Safety,  373-381, 391. 

Pennsylvania  Council  of  Safety,  378-381. 

Pennsylvania  Convention,  378*. 

Pennsylvania  General  Assembly,  389,  391-394. 

Pennsylvania  Navy,  123,  315,  373-395;  begin 
nings  of,  373-380;  rules  and  regulations, 
375;  commodores,  378-379;  pay,  380-381; 
navy  board,  381-383;  in  1777  and  1778 
383:389;  in  1779,  390-391;  prize  courts, 
391-392;  in  1782,  393-395. 

Pennsylvania  Navy  Board,  377,  381-383,  385, 
387-389. 

Pennsylvania  Provincial  Conference  of  Com 
mittees,  379. 

Pennsylvania  Supreme  Executive  Council  378 
382,  383,  387-392,  394.  395. 


54O  Index 

"Pennsylvania  Farmer,"  the,  452-454. 

Penobscot  Expedition,  337,  347-352,  476. 

Pensacola,  175,  308,  311. 

Pensions,  46,  129-131,  366,  381,  392,  410,  447. 

Philadelphia,  39,  73,  92,  93,  94,  99,  102,  115, 
140,  154,  166,  171,  196,  235,  238,  247,  311, 
360,  373,  383,  384,  385,  389,  393,  413,  437- 
440,  465. 

"Phoenix,"  the,  408. 

Pickering,  Timothy,  323. 

Pickles,  William,  309-311. 

Piercy,  Thomas,  297. 

"Pigot,"  the,  469,  470. 

Pinckney,  Colonel,  423. 

"Plater,"  the,  442. 

Plymouth,  Mass.,  63,  64,  98,  322. 

"Polacre,"  the,  433. 

Pollock,  Oliver,  160,  307-310. 

"Polly,"  the,  430,  431. 

Pontchartrain,  Lake,  309,  310. 

Porto  Rico,  237. 

Portsmouth,  N.  H.,  64,  91,  93  106,  111,  116, 
122,  169,  196,  204,  476. 

Portsmouth,  Va.,  400. 

Portuguese  government,  273. 

Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.,  92,  96,  166. 

Pray,  Captain,  460. 

President  of  the  Continental  Congress,  89,  118, 
188,  257,  301. 

Prince  Edward  Island,  66. 

"Prince  Frederick,"  the,  169. 

"Prince  of  Wales,"  the,  430. 

Prisons,  naval,  150-151,  267. 

Prisoners,  naval,  151,  188,  209,  222,  227,  245, 
261,  267-272,  281,  341. 

Privateers  and  Privateering,  Continental,  49- 
50,  112,  119,  127-128,  136,  146-148,  201, 
306,  308;  in  Europe,  260-261,  281;  English, 
151,  164,  165,  345-347,  411,  429,  445,  446, 
449-451;  Massachusetts,  148-149,  320-323, 
327,  339-341,  344-347,  349;  Connecticut, 


Index  541 

148,  364-365;  Pennsylvania,  148,  382,  390, 
392-393;  Virginia,  148,  405;  South  Caro 
lina,  427,  428,  429;  Maryland,  148,  443, 
444;  North  Carolina,  459;  Rhode  Island, 
146,  148,  467-468;  New  York,  475;  New 
Hampshire,  476. 

Prize  Agents,  Continental,  93-95,  103,  110, 
195-196,  226-227,  247,  303-304;  of  Massa 
chusetts  navy,  327;  of  Connecticut  navy, 
363;  of  New  York  navy,  474. 

Prizes  of  Continental  navy,  59,  163-164,  165, 
168-169,  172-173,  177-178,  206,  236,  237, 
267,273,  281-288,  293,  296-297,  308,  311;  of 
Washington's  fleet,  62,  64-71;  of  Massa 
chusetts  navy,  332-333,  335,  343-347, 
353;  of  Connecticut  navy,  357,  361,  368- 
369;  of  Pennsylvania  navy,  385,  391,  394; 
of  Virginia  navy,  407;  of  South  Carolina 
navy,  418-419,  429-430,  431,  438-439;  of 
Maryland  navy,  449;  of  Georgia  navy,  461; 
of  Rhode  Island  navy,  464;  of  New  York 
navy,  474. 

Prizes,  sharing  of,  in  Continental  navy,  43, 
46,  49-50,  51,  127,  129-130,  232-234;  in 
Washington's  fleet,  62;  in  Massachusetts 
navy,  326,  333;  in  Connecticut  navy,  361, 
366;  in  Pennsylvania  navy,  381;  in  South 
Carolina  navy,  427-428,  436,  439-440;  in 
Maryland  navy,  443,  448;  in  Rhode  Island 
navy,  468;  in  New  York  navy,  473. 

Pritchard,  Paul,  427. 

Promotions  in  the  Continental  navy,  123-125. 

''Prosper,"  the,  421. 

"Protector,"  the  barge,  450. 

"Protector,"  the  ship,  of  the  Massachusetts 
navy,  201,  336,  344,  345,  353. 

' '  Protector, ' '  the  ship,  of  the  Virginia  navy,  406. 

Providence,  R.  I.,  91,  93,  95,  98,  113,  135, 
136,  148,  360,  468. 

"Providence,"  the  frigate,  91,  172,  204,  207, 
292,  433,  468. 


542  Index 

"Providence,"  the  sloop,  55,  57,  59,  173,  175, 

349,  465. 

Prussian  government,  177 
"Putnam,"  the,  377,  385. 

"  QUEEN  OF  FRANCE,"  the,  169,  171,  172,  204, 

207,  263,  433. 
Quincy,  Joseph,  32. 

"RAISONNABLE,"  the,  350. 

"Raleigh,"  the  brig,  408. 

"Raleigh,"  the  frigate,  91,  281. 

Randall,  Thomas,  472. 

Randolph,  Peyton,  82,  119. 

"Randolph,"  the,  92,  430. 

"Ranger,"  the  galley,  387. 

"Ranger,"  the  ship,   106,   168,   169,   171,   172, 

292-293,  433,  434. 

Rank,  naval,  123-126,  197,  257-258,  422. 
Rathburn,  John  P.,  172. 

Rations  in  Continental  navy,  1 28-129 ;  in  Massa 
chusetts  navy,  333 ;  in  Maryland  navy, 
447. 

"Rattlesnake,"  the,  426. 
Read,  George,  86. 
Read,  James,  101,  196,  226,  250. 
Read,  Thomas,  123,  374,  376,  378. 
"Rebecca,"  the,  a  merchantman,  308. 
"Rebecca,"  the  sloop,  461. 
Recaptures,  50,  232,  322-323. 
Red  Bank,  373,  384. 
Reed,  Joseph,  391. 
"Renown,"  the,  414. 
"Reprisal,"  the,  a  privateer,  308. 
"Reprisal,"  the  sloop,  262,  269,  281,  283,  284, 

286,  287,  291. 
"Republic,"  the,  325,  331. 

'Resistance,"  the,  165. 
"Resolution,"  the,  442. 

'Revenge,"  the  brig,  345. 

'Revenge,"  the  cutter,  262,  281,  290,  291. 
Revere,  Paul,  350. 


Index 543 

Rhode  Island  Committee  of  Safety,  463,  464, 
466,  467. 

Rhode  Island  Council  of  War,  138-139,  467, 
468,  469. 

Rhode  Island  General  Assembly,  80,  463-470. 

Rhode  Island,  Governor  of,  465-467. 

Rhode  Island  Inferior  Court  of  Common  Pleas, 
138. 

Rhode  Island  instructions  to  the  Continental 
Congress,  33,  80-85. 

Rhode  Island  Navy,  80,  315,  463-471. 

"Richmond,"  the,  416. 

Richmond,  Va.,  401,  414,  447. 

"Rising  Empire,"  the,  325,  338. 

Roach,  John,  106,  107. 

Robertson,  William,  435. 

Rodgers,  William,  472,  473. 

"Roebuck,"  the,  208,  352,  384. 

Rogers,  Josias,  394. 

"Rose,"  the,  80,  463,  464. 

Ross,  Elizabeth,  377. 

Ross,  John,  256. 

"Rover,"  the,  470,  471. 

"Royal  Charlotte,"  the,  430. 

Rules  and  Regulations,  of  Continental  navy, 
43-48,  109,  110,  202-203,  231;  of  British 
navy,  47-48,  202;  of  Massachusetts  navy, 
333-335;  of  Connecticut  navy,  361,  366; 
of  Pennsylvania  navy,  374,  375,  391;  of 
South  Carolina  navy,  422;  of  Maryland 
navy,  447;  of  New  York  navy,  472. 

Rush,  Benjamin,  374. 

Russian  navy,  304. 

Rutledge,  Edward,  36. 

Rutledge,  John,  82,  119,  424,  429,  430. 

ST.  AUGUSTINE,  Fla.,  156,  419,  429,  430 

St.  Christopher,  island  of,  175. 

St.    Eustatius,   island  of,   237,   305,   306,   331. 

457. 

St.  Mary's  Isle,  293. 
St.  Thomas,  island  of,  335. 


544 Index 

Salem,  Mass.,  62,  149,  320,  328. 

Salisbury,  Mass.,  91,  325. 

"Sally,"  the,  389. 

Salter,  Titus,  476. 

Saltonstall,  Dudley,  54,  57,  133,  350,  352. 

Saltonstall,  Gilbert,  206. 

Saltonstall,  Gurdon,  154. 

Salvage,  50,  201,  232,  323. 

Samson,  Simeon,  343. 

Sandy  Hook,  370,  390,  474. 

"Saratoga,"  the,  122,  204,  208. 

Sartine,  French  minister  of  marine,  274,  278, 
296. 

Savage,  P.  H.,  330. 

Savannah,  156,  167,  418,  459. 

Saybrook,  Conn.,  74,  359. 

Schuyler,  General,  71-74,  116,  213. 

"Schuyler,"  the,  367. 

Schweighauser,  a  commercial  agent  in  France, 
256. 

Seal  of  the  Naval  Department,  199,  209,  222. 

Seamen  in  Continental  navy,  difficulties  of  en 
listment,  144-147;  numbers,  158-159. 

Searle,  James,  101. 

Sears,  Isaac,  358. 

Secretary  of  Congress,  140,  209,  222. 

Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs,  214,  255. 

Secretary  of  Marine,  208-209,  214-218,  221, 
224,  229. 

Secretary  of  War,  216. 

Secret  Committee  of  Congress,  162. 

Selkirk,  Earl  of,  293. 

Selman,  John,  63,  66. 

"Serapis,"  the,  163,  164,  296,  297. 

Seymour,  Stephen,  426. 

Seymour,  Thomas,  380. 

"Shark,"  the,  360,  369. 

Shaw,  Jr.,  Nathaniel,  95,  355,  362-363. 

Sheridan,  Patrick,  231. 

Sherman,  Roger,  221,  355. 

"Sibylle,"  the,  237. 


Indc.r 545 

Simpson,  Thomas,  1G8,  172. 

Skimmer,  John,  120,  165. 

Smith,  James,  72,  471,  472. 

Smith,  Meriwether,  220,  221. 

Smith,  William,  101. 

"Somerset,"  the,  448. 

"South  Carolina,"  the,  436-440. 

South  Carolina  Council  of  Safety,  418-421. 

South  Carolina,  Governor  of,  432,  434. 

South  Carolina  House  of   Representatives,  432, 

434 

South  Carolina  Legislature,  423-428. 
South  Carolina  Navy,   173,  275,  315,  418-440; 
beginnings  of,  418-424;  operations  of,  418- 
421     428-434,    437-440;   navy   board,    424- 
428;  ordinances    of    1777    and    1778,    427- 
428;    privateers,   428-429;    Gillon  and  the 
"South  Carolina,"  435-440. 
South  Carolina  Navy  Board,  424-428. 
South    Carolina,    President    of,    423-425,    427, 

429,  430. 

South  Carolina  Privy  Council,  423,  425,  430. 
South  Carolina    Provincial   Congress,  420-422. 
South  Quay,  Va.,  400,  406,  455,  456. 
Spanish-American  War,  179. 
Spanish  fleet,  166,  173,  242. 
Spanish  government,  219,  273,  282,  308. 
"Speedwell,"  the,  389. 
"Spitfire,"  the,  466. 
"Spy,"  the,  356,  357,  368,  370. 
State    Navies,    152-153,    160;  in   general,   315- 
318;   in    particular,    318-478.      See    Massa 
chusetts  navy,  Connecticut  navy,  etc. 
Stonington,  Conn.,  357. 
Stormont,  Lord,  269-270,  284-289. 
Stranger,  Captain,  345. 
Submarine  invention,  363-364. 
Subsistence  money,  128,  198. 
Suffolk,  Va.,  455-456. 
Sullivan,  Captain,  430. 
Sullivan,  General,  469,  470. 


546  Index 

Sullivan,  James,  321,  323. 

Superintendant    of     Finance,     216,    219,    224, 

227. 

"Surprise,"  the,  262,  281,  287 
Swanzey,  Mass.,  325. 
Swedish  Court,  273. 
"Sylph,"  the,  309. 

TALBOT,  Silas,  469-470. 
"Tamar,"  the,  419-420. 
"Tartar,"  the,  of  the  Massachusetts  navy,  339, 

353. 

"Tartar,"  the,  of  the  Virginia  navy,  406. 
Taylor,  Richard,  397,  407. 
"Tempest,"  the,  406-407,  411,  414 
Ternay,  Chevalier  de,  207. 
"Terrible,"  the,  448. 

Texel,  the,  Holland,  204,  271,  297-298,  437. 
"Thetis,"  the,  407,  411. 
Thompson,  Thomas,  133. 
Tilghman,  Walter,  447. 
Tillinghast,  Daniel,  95. 
Tories,  338,  348,  370,  448 
Travis,  Edward,  397. 
"Trepassey,"  the,  206. 
"Trimmer,"  the,  393. 
"Truite,"  the,  433,  434. 
Trumbull,  Jonathan,  92,  95,  354,  355. 
"Trumbull,"  the,  92,  113,  204,  206,  220,  235, 

238-239. 

Tucker,  Samuel,  292. 
Tufts,  Simon,  420-421. 
Turner,  George,  227. 
Turpin,  Joseph,  421. 
"Tyrannicide,"  the,   325,   328,   342,  343,   345, 

349,  352. 

UNIFORMS,  of  Continental  navy,  117-118;  of 
Massachusetts  navy,  327;  of  Pennsyl 
vania  marines,  377;  of  Maryland  marines, 
441. 


547 


VARXUM,  J.  M.,  223. 

Vergennes,  French  minister,  261,  284,  285, 
289,  291. 

Vernon,  William,  98-99,  113,  182. 

"Victory,"  the,  87. 

"Virginia,"  the  frigate,  93,  124. 

"Virginia,"  the  ship,  of  the  Royal  navy,  350. 

"Virginia,"  the  ship,  of  the  Virginia  navy,  407. 

Virginia  Board  of  Trade,  409. 

Virginia  Board  of  War,  409. 

Virginia  commissioners  for  defence  of  Chesa 
peake  bay,  415-416. 

Virginia  Commissioner  of  Navy,  409,  415. 

Virginia  Committee  of  Safety, '396-398. 

Virginia  General  Assembly,  401-404,  408-411, 
415. 

Virginia  Governor  and  Council,  399,  401,  403, 
411. 

Virginia  Naval  Commissioner,  409. 

Virginia  naval  magazines,  401. 

Virginia  Navy,  152,  315,  396-417,  429,  446-447, 
449,  450,  456-458;  beginnings  of,  396-403; 
navy  board,  398-403;  admiralty  courts, 
403:405;  vessels,  397-398,  405-408,  414- 
417;  raids,  408,  413-415;  later  legislation, 
408-413,  415-416;  end  of  navy,  416-417. 

Virginia  Navy  Board,  398-403,  405,  408,  409, 
424. 

Virginia  navy-yards,  400,  408,  414. 

Virginia  Provincial  Convention,  396,  398,  403. 

WALLACE,  James,  463. 

Ward,  Artemas,  69,  351. 

Ward,  Samuel,  81,  83. 

Waring,  Thomas,  190-191. 

WTarner,  Seth,  74. 

Warren,  James,  51,  98,  112,  330. 

"Warren,"  the  frigate,  92,  119,  136,  168,  171, 

349,  468. 

"Warren,"  the  schooner,  63. 
Warwick,  Va.,  401,  414. 


548  Index 

Washington,  George,  33,  37,  42,  48,  73,   116, 

154,  166,  167,  204,  211,  362,  388,  422,  446, 

468,  473;  fleets  of,  61-71 ;  on  failure  of  navy, 

184-186;  on  committees  of  Congress,  213. 
"Washington,"  the,  of  the  Continental  navy 

(frigate),  92,  388. 
"Washington,"  the,  of  the  Continental  navy 

(ship),  235,  248-249,  393-396. 
"Washington,"  the,  of  the  Georgia  navy,  460- 

461. 
"Washington,"    the,    of    the    North    Carolina 

navy,  452-454. 
"Washington,"    the,     of     the     Rhode     Island 

navy  (galley),  466. 
"Washington,"    the,     of    the     Rhode     Island 

navy  (sloop),  464,  465. 
"Washington,"  the,  of  the  Virginia  navy,  406, 

456. 
"Washington,"  the,  of  Washington's  fleet,  63, 

65. 

"Wasp,"  the,  55,  57,  158. 
Waterford,  Conn.,  370. 
Waterbury,  David,  77,  358. 
"Watt,"  the,  206-207. 
Weaver,  Lieutenant,  58. 
Webb,  William,  377. 
"West  Florida,"  the,  310-311. 
West  Indies,  the,  80,  151,  161,  165,  167,  169, 

173,  175,  179',  207,  236,  237,  242,  283,  305- 

307,  335,  342,  358,  368-369,  406,  424,  429, 

430,  449,  452. 

Wethersfield,  Conn.,  355,  356. 
"Weymouth,"  the,  368. 
Whaley,  Commodore,  450.. 
Whaling  fleets,  151,  170,  268,  278-279. 
Wharton,  John,  96,  97,  101,  196,  374,  387. 
Whipple,  Abraham,   54-55,    57,    80,    133,    172, 

433,  464-465. 

Whipple,  William,  89,  90,  105-106,  190,  211. 
White,  Robert,  373. 
"Whiting,"  the,  360,  369. 


Indc.Y  549 

Whiting,  Thomas,  260. 

Wickes,  Lambert,  173,  179,  262,  269,  287-291. 

Williams,  Jonathan,  256. 

Williams,  J.  F.,  345. 

Williamsburg,  Va.,  93,  398. 

Willing,  Captain,  308. 

Wilson,  WTillis,  458. 

Wilmington,  N.  C.,  93,  434. 

Winder,  William,  101,  196. 

"Winthrop,"  the,  339,  353. 

"Wolodimer,"  the,  304. 

Woodford,  Thomas,  193. 

Wynkoop,  Jacobus,  72,  74. 

Wythe,  George,  203. 

"YARMOUTH,"  the,  431. 
"York,"  the,  416. 
Yorktown,  siege  of,  415,  446 
Young,  John,  208. 

ZUBLY,  John  J.,  82. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY— TEL.  NO.  642-3405 
This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


«8fr 


WDWSCCRC 


APR  1  3  1999 


LD21A-60m-3,'70 
(N5382slO)476-A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


YB  -37335  . 

U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


COM5WS1SDS 


1=27) 

" 


